UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SANTA  BARBARA 


SPEECH 


EE.  SIMMOIS,  or  EHODE  ISLAND, 


IN    REPLY   TO 


3fessrs.  Bejitoji,  Woodbury,  and  McDvffie,  upon  the  Resolutions  to  post' 
pone  the  BUI  introduced  by  Mr.  McDuffie 

TO  REDUCE  THE  DUTIES   ON  IMPORTS: 

Delivered  in  the  U.  S.  Senate,  March  27,  1S44. 


Mr.  Simmons  rose  and  said  that  the  Senate  had  already,  upon  this  matter, 
passed  through  a  debate  so  full  and  so  able,  that  he  felt  himself  asking  a 
great  indulgence  in  aitenipting-  to  eiiggesi  any  further  argument.  The  im- 
mediaie  form  of  the  qnesiion — the  resohiiion  reported  by  the  Committee  of 
Finance  to  postpone  indefinitely  thebill  presented  by  the  Senator  from  Soutlbi 
Carolina  (Mr.  SIcDuffie)  as  a  revenue  measure,  and  therefore  beyond  the 
■competency  of  this  body  to  originate — presents  a  serious  difficulty.  It  cer- 
tainly implies,  as  the  only  legitimate  matter  of  discussion,  the  question  of 
our  independent  and  primaiy  )urisdiciion  over  the  subject.  But  since  others 
iiave  not  confined  themselves  to  the  resolutions,  and  have,  upon  the  motion 
to  postpone,  based  an  argument  of  the  merits  of  a  bill,  before  we  have  yet 
settled  whether  or  not  we  have  the  const iiuiional  power  to  pass  it,  I  propose 
to  examine  these  intended  changes  in  the  existing  Tariff,  and  the  reasons 
offered  in  behalf  of  this  reduction  of  duties. 

Before  I  proceed,  however,  I  would  call  the  attention  of  the  honorable 
Senator  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  McDufi.'ie)  to  an  expression  of  his,  used 
in  the  midst  of  a  tribute  at  once  just  and  generous  to  an  eminent  statesman, 
not  long  since  a  member  of  this  assembly.  He  said  that  there  was,  on  the 
part  of  the  friends  of  that  Senator,  (Mr.  Clay,  of  Kentucky,)  "  in  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Tariff  of  1S42,  a  foul  and  failiiless  desertion  of  the  provisions 
of  the  Coinpromise  Aat." 

Now,  as  the  Senator  would  not  have  used  these  expressions  had  he  borne 
personal  part  in  what  took  place  on  the  occasion  in  question,  I  will  succinct- 
ly recite  for  his  information  the  fuels. 

In  the  earlier  part  of  the  ses.sion  of  1842,  the  Senator  from  Kentucky,  re- 
ferred to,  introduced  a  series  of  resolutions,  in  one  of  which  it  was  declared 
"that  in  the  adjustment  of  the  Tariff'   (so  as  to  raise  a  revenue  of  twenty- 
six  millions)  "  the  principles  of  the   Compromise  Act  generally  should  be 
adhered  to,  and  especially  a  maximmn  rale  of  duty  should  be  established, 
from  which  there  ought  to  be  as  little  departure  as  possible."     During  the 
Ndebate  upon  the  subject  thus  broached,  a  distinguished  citizen  of  South  Ca- 
rolina, then  a  Senator  here,  (Mr.  Cai.houn,)  declared  one  of  the  main  pro- 
-  *'  visiwisof  the  Compromise  Act — that  of  laying  duties  on  a  home  valuation^ 
instead  of  the  foreign  one — to  be  both  unconstitutienal  and  impracticable. 
Yet  this  provision,  at  the  enactment  of  that  law,  was  announced  to  the 
Senator  from  Souih  Carolina  in  question,  by  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  re- 
ferred to,  and  bj  others,  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  law,  without 
■which  it  would  noi  pass.     Thus  understood,  that  Senator  acquiesced,  and, 
voted  for  it. 


[Mr.  McDuFFiE  said  ihat  this  was  impossible,  and  tlierefore  he  could  re- 
tract nothing.] 

Mr.  S.  resiwned.     I  content  myself  now  by  reasserting  the  fact,  and  refer  to- 
every  Senator  who  was  then  present  for  its  correctness,  and  will  again  notice 
it  when  I  consider  the  speech  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  South  Carolina. 
I  proceed  to  examine  the  arguments  more  recently  made. 
The  honorable  Senator  from  Missouri  (Mr.  Benton)  has,  for  the  two  last 
'  days,  by  the  manner  in  which  he  treated  this  subject,  invested  it  willi  a  new 
interest.     Though  expressing  doubis  as  to  the  appropriateness  of  ihe  time 
for  a  right  adjustment  of  this  question,  yet  he  promised  cordially  to  co-operate 
with  his  friends  in  their  exertions  to  destroy  the  present  law.     If  unsuccessful, 
lie  would  not  (he  said)  be  discouraged,  but  carry  the  question  to  the  people. 
Stating  the  grounds  which  he  meant  to  occupy,  the  honorable  Senator 
said  that,  since  the  estnblishmeut  of  our  Government,  two  systems  of  policy 
iiave  been  pursued.^ — the  one  beginning  in  1791  and  ending  in  1 816;  the 
otlier  dating  from  this  last  period,  and  continuing  till  the  present  day.     Of 
, these  two  periuda,  ho  eays  ibe  Tariff  laws  have  been  essentially  different — 
that  they  were  "  framed  with  different  views,  and   constitute  opposite  Sys- 
tems."    He  was  (he  said)  for  returHing  to  the  old  system,  with  but  this/iwi- 
iation — that  no  duly  should  exceed  some  30  or  33  per  cent.    He  says  :  "  Inr- 
j-etuming  to  this  ground,  or  ratiier  in   remaining  upon  it,  (for  it  has  always 
,l)eeti  my  doctrine,)  I  find  myself  standing  upon  the  ground  of  the  fiisl 
twenty-five  years  action  of  this  Government,  and  by  the  side  of  the  highesk 
Free  Trade  authorities  which  have  since  arisen." 

These  two  systems  have,  throughout  the  Senator's  argument,  been  con- 
traated  and  characterized  as  the  high  duly  and  low  duly  systems. 

In  examining  the  several  positions  taken  by  him  against  the  Tariff  Act  of 
1842,  I  need  scarcely  advert  to  their  inconsistency  with  his  own  votes  here. 
These,  from  his  first  taking  his  seat  here  (I  believe)  in   1821,  down  to  his 
opposition  to  the  law  of  1842,  have  been  uniformly  given  in  favor  of  alt 
ihe  high  Tariffs  he  now  so  vehemently  denounces.     With  his  venerated 
.I'riend,  General  Jackson,  he  voted  for  the  Tariff  of  1824  ;  with  his  present 
.leader,  Mr.  Van  Bureii,he  gave  his  voice  for  that  of  1S2S — the  Tariff  which. 
^gures  among  his  "  Free  Trade  authorities,"  under  epithets  of  such  pecu- 
liar detestation.     He  also  supported  that  of  1832.     He  opposed  the  Com- 
jpromise  Act  of  reduction  and  leconciliation,  and  that,  too,  when  there  was  an 
.overflow  in  the  Treasury.     Though  one  might  imagine  that  a  man's  "  old 
oTounds,"  the  "  doctrines  on  which  he  has  always  stood,"  were  to  be  found 
in  his  unvarying  votes,  yet  the  honorable  Senator  cleared  up  all  this  in  hist 
second  day's  speech  yesterday,  by  saying  that  he  had  gained  something  of 
svisdot^  by  experience  ;  that,  when  he  voted  for  the  acts  in  question,  he  was 
^deceived — "  humbugged  and  bamboozled,"  (terms  which  my  respect  for  him 
wotild  not  have  allowed  me  to  use,)  were,  I  believe,  his  expiessions. 

In  favor  of  what  the  honorable  Senator  now  denounces  as  this  system  of 
.laigh  duties,  I  find  that  my  predecessors,  the  Kepreseniatives  of  the  Stale  I 
iiave  the  honor  to  represent,  generally  voted  with  him  : — v/isely  and  patri- 
otically, it  seems  to  me.  But,  whether  or  not  it  was  wise  to  establish  this 
system  of  protection,  the  question  now  is  whether  or  not  it  is  exihet  right  or 
wise  to  abandon  and  destroy  it — together  with  the  important  branches  of 
imsiness  which  have  grown  up  under  it. 

It  is  by  exhibiting  the  exports  of  the  couniiy  from  1792  to  1808,  which  show 
a  steady  and  rapid  increase  from  19  millions  to  108,  and  by  presenting  tables 
of  the  flourishing  state  of  the  revenue  from  customs  during  the  same  period, 
iiud  by  contrasting  these  with  other  tables  exhibiting  the  disastrous  tesiilta  of 


the  high  duty  system,  since  1816,  to  all  interests  except  the  manufacturing, 
tliat  the  Senaior  from  Missouri  lias  endeavored  to  sustain  his  proposition  of  the 
advaniayfes  of  low  duties  to  revenue,  and  every  thing  else  but  manufactures. 

Certainly,  I  he  Senator  referred  to  the  fact  that,  during  his  first  period,  the 
general  war  in  Europe  and  our  own  neutrality  made  us  for  a  time  the  car- 
riers of  the  world,  and  gave  iq  our  trade,  in  particular,  a  very  large  business 
of  iniporiing,  for  re  exportation,  great  annual  amounts  of  foreign  goods  and 
;prodnciioiis,  thus  adding  much  to  both  our  imports  and  exports,  not  without 
a  solid  gain  to  our  revenue  and  great  encouragement  to  our  agriculture  and 
■commerce.  But  the  Senator  says  he  has  found,  upon  comparison,  that  the 
amount  of  goods  re  exported  is  about  the  same  for  the  earlier,  as  for  the  later 
period  of  nvenly-five  years — that  is,  about  $525,000,000  for  each.  He 
ihiniis,  therefore,  that  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether  these  are  included  in 
(he  exports,  or  cast  out  of  the  account. 

In  an  aulhoriiy  repeatedly  quoted  by  the  Senator,  (the  book  of  Mr.  Tench 
Coxe,)  I  find  the  year  1808  spoken  of  as  one  of  which  the  statistics  marked 
«  high  degree  of  prosperity  ;  but  he  goes  on  to  remind  the  Government  that, 
while  ihe  exports  had  risen  to  an  amount  of  §108,000,000,  (the  sum  ex- 
hibited in  the  Senator's  tables  for  that  year,)  but  j?4S,000,000  of  the  amount 
were  of  our  own  productions;  the  rest  (.$60,000,000)  was  formed  of  re-ex- 
ported foreign  goods — exceeding  the  domestic  by  25  per  cent. 

Now,  the  Senaior  has  forgot  to  consider  thai,  during  his  first  period,  the 
reexportations  of  foreign  merchandise  often  exceeded  the  amount  of  our 
expoits  of  domeslic  produce,  which  would  vitiate  all  his  conclusions;  that 
<.he  proportion  of  our  general  exports  formed  by  foreign  goods  re-exported, 
has  loiaily  changed,  though  the  mere  amount  may  be  the  same  ;  lliat  a  large 
part  of  that  apparent  prosperity  of  which  he  speaks,  was  thus  a  mere  carry- 
ing-trade, only  enjoyed  from  the  disturbed  state  of  the  world  abroad.  Let 
him  make  these  allowances;  let  him  further  recollect  the  larger,  but  tempo- 
rary market  for  breadstuffs,  which  the  European  wars  of  that  time  added  to 
our  commerce ;  let  him  further  reflect  on  the  vast  home  commerce  of  the 
8lates  which  has  sprung  up  almost  entirety  during  his  second  period,  and  he 
will  certainly  see  how  illusory  is  the  course  of  reasoning  which  he  has 
founded  on  his  tables.  I  will  substitute  tables  of  our  exports,  which  I  have 
caused  to  be  prepared.  They  exhibit,  I  think,  clearly  and  fairly,  the  facts 
to  which  the  Senator's  argument  should  have  applied. 

Table  showing  the  vnlue  of  Exports  frmn  the  United  Stales. 


Year. 

Domestic. 

Foreign. 

Total. 

1791 

$19,fi6(),000 

§539,156 

$20,005,156 

179-2 

18,. 500,000 

512,041 

19,012,041 

1793 

19,000,000 

1,753,098 

20,753,098 

1794 

24,000,000 

2,109,57-2 

26, 109,. 572 

1795 

26,. 500, 000 

6,526,233 

33; 026, 233 

1796 

39,. 500, 000 

8,489,472 

47,989,472 

1797 

40,7fi4,097 

26,300,000 

67,064,097 

1738 

29,850,026 

27,000,000 

56,850,206 

1799 

28,5-27,097 

33,000,000 

61,527,097 

1800 

33, 14-2, 52-2 

45,523,000 

78,665,522 

1801 

31,840,903 

39,130,877 

70,971,780 

1803 

47,473,2114 

46,642,721 

94,115,925 

1803 

36,708,189 

35,774,971 

72,483,160 

N04 

42,205,961 

13,594,072 

55,809,033 

]8(js 

41,467,477 

36,231,597 

77,699,074 

1806     , 

42,387,00-2 

53,179,019 

95,566,021 

1807 

41,253,7-27 

60,283,236 

101,536,963 

1808 

48,699,593 

59,643,558 

108,342,15" 

Table  sliowing  tht  valtK  of  Exports  from  the  United  Statu. 

Year. 

Domestic. 

Foreign. 

Total. 

1817 

$68,313,500 

$19,358,069 

$87, 671,. 569 

1818 

73,854,437 

19,426,696 

93,281,133 

1819 

50,976,836 

19,165,683 

70,142,521 

1820 

51,683,640 

18,008,029 

69,691,669 

1821 

43,671,894 

21,302,483 

64,974,382 

1822 

49,874,185 

22,286,202 

72,160,387 

1823 

47,155,408 

27,543,622 

74,699,03U 

1824 

50,649,500 

25,337,157 

75,986,657 

1825 

66,944,745 

32,590,643 

99,535,388 

1826 

63,055,710 

24,539,612 

77,595,322 

1827 

58,921,691 

23,403,136 

82,324,827 

1828 

50,669,669 

21.. '195, 017 

72,264,686 

1829 

55,700,193 

16,658,478 

72,358,671 

183U 

59,462,029 

-      14,387,479 

73,849,508 

1831 

61,277,057 

20,033,526 

81,310,5;<3 

1832 

63,137,470 

24,039,473 

87,176,943 

1833 

70,317,698 

19,822,735 

90,140,433 

1834 

81,034,103 

23,312,811 

104,336,973 

1835 

101,189,082 

20,504,495 

121,693,577 

1836 

106,916,680 

21,746,360 

128,663,040 

1837 

95,564,414 

21,854,962 

117,419,376 

183S 

96,033,821 

12,452,795 

108,486,616 

1839 

103,533,891 

17,494,525 

121,028,416 

1840 

113,762,617 

17,809,333 

131,571,950 

1641 

106,382,722 

15,469,081 

121,851,803 

1842 

92,969,996 

11,721,538 

104,691,534 

LeaTino-  aside,  then,  as  but  little  better  than  imaginary,  those  general 
deductions  of  every  otlier  sort  which  the  Senator  would  found  on  his  ta- 
bles, I  will  confine  myself  to  the  only  point  capable  of  being  made  posi- 
tive— the  rate  of  duties,  on  our  imports,  during  the  two  periods  selected  by 
the  Senator.  For  this  purpose,  I  have  procured  the  following  tables,  show- 
ing the  amount  of  foreign  goods  consumed,  and  the  revenue  collected  in 
each  period  : 

-    $1,966,342,238 
605.651,700 


Imports  of  foreign  produce  from  1791  to  1816  inclusive 
Export;  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  from  1791  to  1816  inclusive 


Value  of  imports  consumed  from  1791  to  1816  inclusive  ...      1,360,690,538 

Total  amount  net  revenue  from  imports  from  1791  to  1816  inclusive  .         264,947,256 

Proportionate  per  centage  of  the  whole  amount  received   for  duties  oa  the 
whole  amount  of  imports  consumed  in  tlie  United  States    •  .  - 

Imports  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  from  1817  to  1842  inclusive  - 
Exports  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  from  1817  to  1842  inclusive 

Value  of  imports  consumed,  &.C.,  from  1817  to  1842  inclusive 

Total  amount  net  revenue  from  imports  from  1817  to  1842  inclusive  - 

Proportionate  per  centage  of  the  whole  amount  received  for  duties  on  the 

whole  amount  consumed  in  the  United  States  -  -  -  -    25  7-: 


19;  per  cent. 

-  $2,481,548,884 

496,560,087 

-  1,984,988,797 

507,994,558 


10  per  ct. 


These  rales  by  no  means  show  such  a  difference  in  the  duties  of  the 
two  periods  as  the  Senator  has  supposed.  He  said  that  they  were  not^auch 
above  one-third  as  high  in  the  first  twenty-five  years  as  in  (he  last. 

[Here  Mr.  Bisnton  and  Mr.  McDuffie  asked  whether  (he  amount  of 
imports,  as  stated  by  Mr.  S.,  did  not  include  both  the  free  and  dutiable 
good.":  ■*  1 


Mr.  Simmons  resumed.  Tlie  tables  show  the  entire  imports.  The  ma- 
terials &om  which  the  Senate's  officer  prepared  them  could  furnish  no  ac- 
count of  free  g-oods  and  specie,  imported  and  reexported  before  1S16.  To 
make  a  fair  comparison,  then,  it  was  necessary  to  include  these  alike  in  the 
estimate  for  both  periods  ;  and,  being  thus  ii.cluded,  a  fair  view  of  the  com- 
parative rates  is  presented.  Senators  will  peiceive,  in  this  way,  that,  during 
the  first  twenty-five  years,  tke  average  of  duties  is  about  19i  per  cent.,  and 
about  25.^  during  the  last — a  difference  of  only  about  licerity  five  per  cent, 
instead  of  Uro  hundred.  The  duties  upon  all  the  imports  of  IS43,  con- 
sumed in  the  country,  was  2I.V  per  cent. 

Imports  of  foreign  produce  in  llie  year  ending  30tli  September,  1843  -     §89,200,895 

Exports  of  foreign  produce,  &o.,  lor  the  year  ending  30tli  September,  1843        -        9,568,781 

Value  of  imports  consumed  in  same  period  ....  -      79,692,114 

Net  refenue  from  customs  in  the  year  ending  30th  September,  1843        -  -      17,106,35'i 

Per  centage  of  duties  on  whole  amount  of  imports  consumed  in  U.  S.  in  said  year  21?,  per  cent. 


I  have  also  caused  to  be  ascertained  the  average  rate  of  duty  on  goods 

imported,  and  not  reexported,  during  the  year  180S,   which   the  Senator 

selected  as  an  example  of  a  flourishing  commerce.     The  result  is,  that  the 

duties  collected   in   that  year   averaged  a  rate  of  above  37  per  cent.,  as 

follows : 

Imports  of  foreign  produce  in  1808  ......    {56,990,000' 

Exports  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  in  1808  ......      12,997,414 

Value  of  importsvconsumed  in  1808  ......      43,992,586 


Total  amount  of  net  revenue  from  customs  in  1808  ....      16,363,550 


Proportionate  per  centage  of  the  whole  amount  received  for  daties  on  the  wliole 
amount  of  imports  consumed  in  the  JTnited  States        -  -  -  -37  1-5  per  ct. 

These  fiicts  in  the  history  of  our  earlier  revenue  laws  will  correct  the 
erroneous  impressions  concerning  them.  Heretofore,  a  vague  idea  has  pre- 
vailed, and  been  spread  by  confident  assertion,  that  our  early  rates  of  im- 
post were  very  light.  With  the  rest  of  the  world,  the  Senator  has  taken  it 
for  granted-  Yet  surely  a  little  consideration  of  a  few  general  facts  might 
have  taught  us  to  distrust  that  impression.  Then,  as  now,  the  means  of 
carrying  on  the  Government,  and  of  redeeming  the  heavy  national  engage- 
ments under  which  it  was  set  up,  were  derived  almost  entirely  from  imposts 
upon  foreign  goods  ;  the  public  domain  yielded,  in  proportion,  but. a  slight 
income.  Duties,  in  a  word,  were  then  quite  as  high  upon  many  articles 
■R'hich  came  in  competition  with  the  products  of  our  industry  as  now. 

During  both  the  Senator's  peiiods,  there  were  considerable  fiuctuations  in 
the  amount  of  imports ;  but  greater  during  his  first  than  his  last.  For  this 
last  fact,  the  embargo  and  the  war  sufficiently  account.  These  inequalities — 
themselves  a  terrible  scourge  to  business  of  every  sort — are  usually  the  fruit, 
Biid  almost  the  only  sure  one,  of  frequent  changes  of  the  law.  The  orders  for 
foreign  goods  will  often  vary  greatly,  even  without  a  change  of  the  law,  in' 
expettation  of  one.  The  efiect  of  this  discussion  will  be  visibly  inscribed' 
upon  the.  business  of  this  year.  The  expectation  of  the  embargo  induced 
large  itiipoitg  In  advance.  Of  such,  the  greater  proportion  seems  to  have 
been  of  articles  paying  a  high  duly.  Hence  the  greater  average  of  duties 
f»r  that  year.  Some  effect  may  also  be  attributable  to  the  credits  then 
allowed  at  the  cusloivi  '.ouses.  But  there  were  then  many  articles,  coming 
in  competititior      tb  ^''°  domestic  product!'^'''''  upor  '"bich  verv '  '  'h  spe- 


6 

-r-tji£c  (iaiies  were  imposed — much  above  the  maximnm  rates  proposetl  by 
i:  J&js  Senator — so  that  liis  proposed  limitation  will  not  only  cut  down  what 
KSistcalls  the  high  duty  system,  but  would  have  made  very  large  reductions 
r  'mi  i^'i'hat  he  entitles  "  the  low  duly  system" — especially  if  he  meant  to  apply 
Ms  iimilatiou  upen  the  foreign  cost  of  articlea  alone  ;  which,  I  need  hardly 

■  &M.,is  a  part  of  his  plan  of  reductions. 

H^^ctv,  if  there  is  to  be  (as  the  Senator  proposes)  any  discrimination  be- 

jysad  (lie  best  rate  for  mere  revenue,   and  this  (as  he  avows)  for  purposes 

-  ^«f  ;]?potection,  nothing  can  be  better  ascertained  among  praciical   men  than 

^•ftaithe  ad  valnrem  method  of  levying  duties  is  wholly  inefficient  for  that 

■vfj^ieet.     This  is  made  clear,  not  by  the  testimony  of  our   manufacturers, 

^jfeaiftlie  memorials  and  the  statements  of  our  American  in)porting  merchants 

"■feErcmseives,   olfered   when    »ve   last  had  this  subject  under  consideration. 

ff&ejCGnciir  without  hesitation  in  saying  that  there  is  no  hope  of  enforcing 

■  f&fc  fair  collection  ®f  duties,  except  by  means  of  specific  rates. 

.*■    jTOwder  these,  wJuch  admit  no  evasion,  business  in  its  usu.al  course  will 

'fe  carried  on  by  the  American  merchants,  because  of  the  advantages  they 

•jpa;sess  by  their  location.     Chanjre  the  system,  however,   to   that  of  esti- 

ssaXiKg  ihe  diuies  upon  a  value  which  the  foreign  manufacturer  may  make 

amierely  nominal  one,  and  the  native  merchants  are  driven  from  the  trade, 

•gKijS  it  is  cast  into  the   hands  of  the  European  manufacturer  alone.     If  the 

saftisliant,  known  to  be  in  a  certain  trade,  (say  of  New  York,)  buys  of  him 

6* Cfec  fair  or  lowest  market  price  of  Manchester  or  Lyons,  a  commodity, 

Ifcis-Ktre  to  be  met  by  the  competition  of  him  of  whom   he  has  bought, 

5j3iMi  «oirth\vith  ships  to  the  same  quarter  the  same   article,  or  even  one  a 

•j'Sa^c-iaferior  while  it  seems  the  same.     Taught  by  the   sale  he  has  just 

«•  "i^fiiiSe,  he  is  sure  of  a  vent  for  his  goods  ;  instead   of  the  real  value,   tested 

i%y&iifi  prioe  to  the  merchant,  he  enters  his  stuff's  or  other  things  at  his  own 

-ts^jfmi&ie of  cost,  and  is  thus  able  entirely  to  undersell  his  competitors,  be- 

"i'caaise  .paying  a  less  duty.     The  effect  is  just  the  same  upon  any  manufac- 

sstuing  competitor  of  this  country,  whom  he  may  meet  in  onr  markets. 

!ESim,  though  to  appearance  protected  by  high  duties,  he  can  often  undersell, 

'iiurwigh  this  means  of  evading  them  ;  or,  when  pressed  for  money  or  bur- 

ffe«eJiJ  with  an  overstock  of  a  particular  commodity,  he  can  force   it  upon 

'-,  Mtr  market,  realize  upon  what  otherwise  he  was  not  likely  to  sell,  and  com- 

■;5}»Baaate  his  particular  loss  (if  there  is  any)  by  breaking  down  the  less  opu- 

vlflEt  producer  in  this  country,  and  so  securing  himself  a  monopoly  of  the 

Bifijpply.] 

.ffc  short,  we  might  just  as.well  permit  foreigners  to  fix  the  rate  of  duty 

-  i-wfe+A  they  are  to  pay,  as  to  fix  the  value  upon  which  that  duty  is  to  be 

k.^ied.  The  latter  method  leaves  them,  not  less  than  the  former,  masters  of 

mar  Tariff,  and  of  the  imposts  they  are  to  pay.     There  will  be  no  complaint 

Itsim  that  quarter  ;  if  we  take  either  of  these  methods  of  laying  duties,  prac- 

toca.Hy,  they  will  not  care  which  we  give  them. 

iiCl  me  consider  another  of  the  Senator's  propositions.     He  says  that  it 
..wriil  j»oi  do  to  go  before  the  people  with  the  isstie  presented  in   the  bill  of 
'"^Ve  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  which  reduces  all  duties  to  one  rate; 
Vre  musi,  hi;  avers,  bo  discrimination.     He  proposes,  therefore — 
\st.  To  put  the  highest  rates  of  duty  upon  articles  of  luxury,  and  to  per- 
those  of  common  necessity  to  come  in  either  at  very  low  duties,  or  en- 
\free,  according  as  they  are  more  or  less  indispensable. 
To  place  the  maximum  duties  on  such  articles  from  abroad  as  come 
Tipetition  with  like  ones  produced  in  this  country, 
ired  the  facility  with  which  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  nod- 


ding  his  assent  to  the  former  of  these  propositions,  acqifieseed  in  aprin<eJ)Sf»JBi; 
which  seems  to  me  totally  irreconcilable  with  those  which  his  ov;n^  'iiiS- 
must  have  had  in  view,  because  more  destructive  to  protection.  ElvJ  itw^sser-- 
singular  to  hear  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  thus  encouraged,  deoiiftMS'- 
(ihough  bent  on  discriniinaiioji  for  the  purposes  of  profeciion)  that  he  saseE''- 
the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  could  now  proceed  in  haimony. 

I  may  be  mistaken  in  ihinking  that  the  Senator  fiom   Missouri  wooiSi'S" 
not  have  adopted  these  Free  Trade  doctrines,  if  he  had  thoroughly  e2B.ATi» 
ined  them — 1  cannot  be  mistaken  in  saying  that  it  is  impossible  to  reco««3^- 
them  with  his  own  specific  propositions.     If  he  really  designs  to  issb'sitf 
upon  a  Tariff  law  for  the  benefit  of  American  labor,  and  expects  the  'ja*s> 
CHrrence  in  this  object  of  the  Free  Trade  men,  he  will  find  it  not  ss-s-ss';*.. 
to  satisfy  the  aniiProteciionists,  and  will  be  disappointed  of  the  harrEJ-^avni." 
on  which  he  congralulated  himself. 

The  Senator  from  South  Carolina  nodded  no  assent  to  the  Senator's setrsasiKi' 
proposition.     This  omission  conveys  a  distinct  negative.     Tlie  fiist  pi'ssj'if- 
sition  is  more  desiruciive  to  protection  than  the  hoiizonial  Tariff  propajafc 
and  a  greater  concession  to   Free  Trade  ilieorists;  the  second  is  direc^jtw 
war  with  all  their  opinions.     It  is  an  attempt  to  iuiite  opposite  systerais'rjasrt'' 
hostile  piinciples — the  Senator's  old  acts   with   his  new  opinions;     lt<8? 
cannot  prevail  at  once,  or  be  parcel  of  the  same  law.     The  Sena;ior  «ja!Bwt:»»s 
at  once  be  a  Free  Trade  man,  and  encourage  or  protect   ihe  labor  ofT  iiii.iir'' 
own  countrymen.     It  is  no  part  of  the  policy  which  the  Senator  from  Sfwatfe 
Carolina  proposes  to  protect  Home  Industry  ;  he  knows   that   when  feats^- 
sents  to  any  such  proposition,  he  abandons  ihe  whole  system  of  VisfT-Tsdm 
If  he  yields  lo  the  first  proposition,  he  will   certainly  expect  (as  .*le  ji^iiaa^ 
may)  that  the  Senator  from  Missouri  should  yield  up  the  second,-  sss  kaismr 
sistent  with  the  opinions  they  avow  in  common. 

Besides,  the  Senators  first  proposition  covers  the  whole  ground,  andleaBtsjs. 
nothing  for  the  second.     Let  him  please  examine  the  former  rule  ;  he  ^lais*- 
poses  to  divide  all  commodities  into  two  great  classes — luxuries  and  neaae* 
saries!     On  all  luxuries,  he  proposes  a  duty  of  3.3  per  cent.     And,  as- :ijijs& 
average  rate  is  to  be  20  per  cent.,  he  must  reduce  the  rate  upon  nscessii-' 
ries  to  7  per  cent,  lo  accomplish  it. 

The  Senator  will  see  tliat  this  is  a  proper  adjustment  of  dmies  un<Jerv:3&s-- 
first  part  of  his  plan,  as  assented  to  by  his  friend  from  South  CsTGHosEi/- 
Now,  sir,  does  it  not  cover  all  the  imports,  and  leave  nothing  fcr  his-seeraiXSMf- 
proposiiion  to  operate  upon  ? 

What  will  be  the  result  as  to  labor  generally  in  this  country?     Are-iMit^i' 
our  people  almost  invariably  engaged  in  producing  the  necessary  artioi.^;"!HiE 
food,  of  comfortable  raiment,  and  the  common  conveniences  and  comi'o.Ttii?-- 
of  life?     Must  not  nearly  all  the  objects  of  their  industry  be  placed,  riM^s 
his  rule,  at  the  very  lowest  rale  of  duty,  and  therefore  with  the  least  praiiecsi- 
tion?    Does  not  his  plan  leave  our  markets  to  be  supplied  with  all  theija'sw,- 
ticles  by  foreigners?    And  must  not  such  a  system  reduce  the  wages  ofe  'jwar^ 
husbandmen,  mechanics,  and  manufacturers,  nearly  to  the  rate  paid  t©  Si" 
lopean  laborers?     Must  not  our  workmen  make  shoes  and  hats  siid  o'.iOTu 
things  to  compete  with  those  of  France,  Germany,  and  Britain,  wher®  ssiaK: 
starve  at  their  work  ?     Must  not  our  workers  in   iron  submit  to  naaritY.  iBiB! 
priccft  which  madden  the  Welsh  Rebeccaites?     Must  not  our  growers;  sf' 
■wool  sh&ar  their  flocks  at  the  prices  of  New  South  Wales  ? 

Should  il^e  honorable  Senator  contend  that  he  is  also  for  ISvyiRg!{ft«^ 
highest  protective  duties  on  these  articles,  is  he  not  at  once  mei  both  i>v  'Mv 
ground  he  has  hijiiself  taken,  and  by  all  his  own  highest  Free  Tssi&-^aeS'- 


8 

thorities.  This  classification,  and  (hese  rales  of  diUy,  are  according  to 
his  own  declaration  of  principles,  sanctioned  by  the  assent  of  the  authorities 
to  which  he  looks — his  Free  Trade  associates.  Can  he,  after  this,  set  npan 
opposite  declaration  lo  which  tliey  liave  not  assented,  and  an  incompatible 
system  that  must  entirely  and  at  once  overthrow  that  lo  which  they  have 
agreed  ?  It  seems  to  me  demonstraied,  that  his  two  propositions  cannot  be 
embraced  in  the  same  system,  and  that  he  has  committed  himself  to  one 
which  has  been  accepted,  at  war  with  all  his  piofessioiis  in  favor  of  Ameri- 
can industry,  and  destruciive  of  the  prosperity  of  all  our  laboring  classes. 
I  think,  therefore,  the  Senator  will  have  to  review  all  his  present  positions, 
and  resume  those  which  have  signalized  the  auspicious  course  of  nearly  his 
entire  public  life. 

But  let  us  now  consider  whether,  even  if  the  Senator  is  right  and  I  am 
wrong  as  to  our  comnjercial  policy  during  his  fir^t  period,  it  by  any  means 
follows  that  what  was,  or  should  have  been,  our  system  then,  is  to  be  wisely 
adopted  as  our  system  now  ?     Has  there  been  no  change  of  circumstances? 

At  the  beginning  of  the  Senator's  fiist  period,  we  had  just  einetged,  with 
exhausted  resources,  from  a  contest  in  which  capital  and  nearly  all  the  arts 
which  it  sets  in  motion,  had  been  almost  swallowed  up.  With  peace,  the 
establishment  of  public  credit  and  an  efficient  Government,  Game  war  through- 
out Europe.  Our  reviving  industry  and  prosperity  w-ere  at  once  nourished 
by  every  thing  that  could  make  them  thrive.  Our  neutral  commerce,  wel- 
come everywhere,  spread  its  sails  on  every  sea.  Our  agricultural  produc- 
tions found  on  all  sides  the  best  markets ;  our  shipping  found  ample  employ- 
ment, not  only  in  wafting  our  own  crops  and  their  rich  returns,  but  in  trans- 
porting those  of  other  countries ;  and  we  became,  for  the  time,  in  some  sort, 
the  carriers,  the  husbandtnen,  and  the  merchants  of  the  world.  Dining  a 
part  of  this  time,  Europe  had  two  millions  of  men  in  arms,  with  an  attend- 
-ant  multitude  probably  at  least  equal,  all  not  merely  withdrawn  from  the 
work  of  production,  but  busy  in  mutually  desolating  the  fields  they  had 
ceased  to  till,  and  destroying  what  they  had  before  produced.  This  vast 
amount  of  labor  diverted  from  the  arts  of  peace  there,  not  only  gave  us  agri- 
cultural markets,  but  increased  largely  the  cost  of  European  production,  and 
Hindering  competition  with  the  growing  arts  and  employments  in  this  coun- 
try, left  a  less  necessity  that  our  Government  should  protect,  by  legislation, 
©ur  industrial  pursuits  : — nevertheless,  that  Government  was  vigilant,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  encourage  their  progress,  by  the  imposition  of  discrimintiting 
duties  in  their  favor. 

Such  was  the  stale  of  things  up  lo  our  war  with  England.  But  after  the 
peace  of  Europe,  and  our  own  \yith  Britain  in  1S15,  another  order  of  things 
aiose.  Tne  disbanded  armies  of  the  world  returned  to  industrious  pursuits; 
instead  of  consumers,  they  becatue  producers.  They  ceased  at  once  not 
only  to  give  full  employment  to  our  agricultural  larbor,  to  afioid  us  markets 
abroad,  but  seized  upon  our  own  for  their  manufactures. 

Such  was  ihe  position  into  which  the  return  of  a  general  peace  threw  our 
trade.  The  country  was  at  once  forced  to  see  that  foreign  markets  would 
be  closed  to  its  agricultural  productions;  and  the  Government  hastened  to 
adopt  a  policy  which,  by  fostering  our  own  mechanic  arts,  should  create  <» 
diversity  of  pursuits,  and  secure  a  home  market  for  them.  This  policy, 
with  modifiratioiis,  has  now  been  that  of  the  country  for  above  twenty-five 
years.  Under  it,  the  manufactures  of  the  United  States  have  increased  (ac- 
cording to  the  late  excellent  book  of  Professor  Tucker,  drawn  from  our  suc- 
cessive censuses)  from  less  than  forty  millions  in  1820,  to  over  four  hundred 
juillioas  in  anoual  production,  household  niauufactures  excluded.    The  raw 


9 

materials  consumed  in  1S40  are  estimated,  by  the  same  author,  at  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty-four  millions  ;  while  lie  •ompnies  the  labor  and  the  use  of 
capital  at  two  himdred  and  thirty-nine  or  twg  hundred  and  forty  millions. 
Adding  this  large  amount  of  raw  materials  to  the  value  of  the  agricultural 
productions  consumed  by  the  laborers  employed  in  manufactures,  (say  one 
hundred  and  forty  millions,)  and  you  have  the  basis  for  a  calculation  of  the 
value  of  the  manufacturing  system  to  the  farmer  in  the  annual  consmnp- 
tion  of  not  less  llian  $31)0,000,000.  Has  the  policy,  then,  not  accomplished 
its  object?  The  Senator  from  Missouri  thinks  not,  and  will  have  it  that  it 
has  destroyed  our  foreign  trade,  and,  so  acting,  deeply  injured  our  agricul- 
ture. I  have  already  meniionetl  that  he  supports  this  opinion  by  ciiing  our 
exports  in  1S08;  hut  that  the  forty-eight  mdlions  of  our  own  productions 
that  year  shipped  abroad,  (not  his  sum  of  one  hundred  and  eight  millions,) 
forms  the  sole  ground  for  his  conclusion.  Comparing  this  fact  of  1808  with 
the  last  year  of  the  census,  and  considering  the  vast  augmentation  of  home 
business  of  every  sort,  I  do  not  find  such  a  state  of  things  as  much  alarms 
me,  or  threatens  our  foreign  commerce  with  desiriiclion,  and  our  agriculiure 
with  ruin — crippled  as  commerce  has  been  of  late  by  treaties  for  Free  Trade 
in  carrying. 

The  Senatoi's  calculation  of  course  took  into  view  the  difference  of  pop- 
ulation now  and  in  ISOS.  At  that  lime  we  numbered  seven  millions.  If, 
then,  seven  millions  of -people  produce  exports  of  foriy-eight  millions,  what 
should  seventeen  millions  of  people  produce?  The  answer  is,  one  hundred 
and  sixteen  millions.  Well,  I  find  that  the  exports  of  our  own  productions, 
in  1840,  was  above  one  hundred  and  thirteen  millions,  or  within  less  than  3 
per  cent,  of  the  required  proportion  to  180S  :  so  that  onr  foreign  trade,  m 
spite  of  the  singular  advantages  it  then  enjoyed,  having  then  an  open  and 
now  a  reslricted  foreign  market,  has  not  declined.  Our  agriculture  has  a 
large  additional  market  for  both  provisions  and  raw  materials,  near  four  hun- 
dred millions  of  which  (or  eight  limes  as  much  as  then  went  abroad)  is  now 
exported  and  consumed  at  home  in  manufactures — so  that,  upon  the  whole,- 
we  have  had,  instead  of  the  ruin  of  which  the  Senator  spoke,  the  most  as- 
tonishing increase  ever  witnessed  in  an  extensive  branch  of  a  nation's  suc- 
cessful induslry. 

Looking  back,  (hen,  are  we  to  say,  as  a  deliberate  matter  of  statesman- 
ship, that  all  thisshoulil  have  then  been  renounced,  and  musi  now  be  aban- 
doned, in  order  to  nipply  Europe  with  food  in  time  of  peace — we,  mean- 
time, remaining  dependant  on  her  for  clothing,  for  muliiindes  of  other  ne- 
cessaries, and  even  for  the  instruments  of  husbandry  ?  And  are  we  now  to 
abolish  all  the  present  forms  of  our  prosperous  industry,  in  the  hope  that 
the  European  Stales  will  abandon  their  restrictive  policy,  in  order  to  give  a 
market  lo  our  breadstuffs  and  provisions,  or  that  ihey  will  again  get  up  a  per- 
manent general  war,  expressly  to  oblige  us?  To  urge  us  lo  base  our  legis- 
lation upon  any  hopes  of  this  sort,  is  a  visionary  rashness,  such  as  no  coun- 
try ever  yet  entertained,  and  surely  no  sober  legislative  body  ever  yet  set 
about.  Cerlainly,  gentlemen  talk  largely  of  what  Europe  is  doing  or  means 
to  do,  to  favor  the  interchange  of  her  manufactures  for  our  fooa  ;  but  had 
we  not  better  wait  to  see  the  efTect,  instead  of  the  expectation,  before  we 
ruin  such  large  interests  and  subvert  all  our  present  well-being,  by  this  flight 
of  the  boldest  nalional  anticipation  that  evei  was  beheld?  Sir,  all  this  idea 
of  entirely  remodelling  our  laws  and  employments,  in  order  to  make  us  de- 
penilanl  on  foreign  legislation — all  ibis  theory  of  renouncing  a  success  and 
a  prosperity  besiowfed  by  our  own  will,  in  order  lo  wait  for  a  reform  in  the 
coiTimercial  systeiti  of  the  world,  seems  to  me  the  most  quixotic,  the  most 


10 

-iif.«»erical  thought  tliat  ever  entered  the  heads  of  grave  statesmen,  or  was 
j^Tsfloated  to  the  consideraiion  of  a  cj^liberalive  assembly  like  this. 

iPflth  reasonable  to  expect  that  any  independent  nation  should  adopt  a  po- 
iirii7*Kaking  it  dependant  upon  others  tor  I  he  cointnodilies  indispensable  for 
iini&rst  necessities,  food  and  clolhing?  Would  notsuch  a  course  be  directly 
?t««5Bst  its  existence  as  a  separate  people — the  laws  of  nationality  itself? 

C^o^tld  two  separate  nations  be  found  whose  interests  coalesced  to  such  a 

«Scv<;ee  as  warranted  an  ariangeineiU  by  which   one  should  supply  all  the 

.9T««-d.and  the  other  all  the  I'loihing  for  both,  wliat  would  this  be  bat  a  case  in 

■«viKcis  ilieir  mutual   interests  would   be  much    better  subserved    by  their  at 

•«*»oe.un!iinij  uiidcr  a  coininon  goveriunent,  rather  tlian  by  preserving  to  each 

o;5»8{?araie  will  (hat  only  endangered   their  common  happiness  ?     Who  can 

.fKHf  ttitjd  that  it  would  be  wise  for  the  governments  of  any  two  nations  to 

.  fi;4 *;pt  a  policy  by  which   the   comfort  and  the  very  lives  of  their  people 

sfevjsid  depend  upon  the  precarious  tenure  of  a  commercial  treaty,  the  rup- 

^MMS-at'  whi>c;h,  by  any  casual  quarrel,  would   expose  the  people  of  the  one 

jf>*ft»s<s.iw:valion,  and  of  the  other  to  nakedness?     The  course  proposed  is  con- 

?tawy  40  all  ike  lessons  of  experience,  as  well   as  all  the   instincts   of  men, 

tifScffl,  -everywhere,  as  socielies  and  individuals,  direct  their  exertions  and  their 

irjBi'jafisijce. towards  seeming  themselves,  above  all   things,  from  any  such  de- 

■j(jKsji4?ir'.i)Ge  4ipon  oiliers. 

^"Jiat  b-ut  a  determination  to  free  ouruelves  from  a  condition  so  degraded 

. iSri; -ito  the  establishment  of  the  independence  of  these  States?     What  was 

fiuaeifs .relied  upon  than  this  slate  of  mutual  interest  and  dependence  aiising 

f&naja  vdiversitied  climate  and   pursuits  to   establish   and  secure  our  happy 

Kh'-i'Mi  ? 

'»?,%€  "Senator  from   Missouri   inged  another   reason  for  reducing  duties, 

•jsSm'lh  requires  a  notice — the  exorbitant  piofiis  made  by  the  manufacturers. 

"0Efc''!!eeiv5ed  to  think  that  it  must  be  cent,  per  cent,  upon  the  capital  invested. 

(flSr.  Benton  here  interposed :  '•  I  said  that  the  gross  product  must  be  as 

.s-iBiads*  trnnnally  as  the  capital."] 

■JSe.  Simmsns  :  I  ain  glad  to  be  set  right ;  for  I  understood  the  Senator  to 
■^asaf  idJaa*  "if  a  man  invested  a  thousand  dollars  in  capital,  he  took  up  a  like 
-wastes  at  «he  enJ  of  the  year."  In  the  form  in  which  he  now  puts  the  thing, 
:)i£8kv«ffl<Migh  to  say  that,  in  many  manufactures,  the  annual  product  much 
i?Ks»e*iisthe  permanent  investment,  but  the  jiroportioii  between  these  (I  need 
Ji3»rffi*5§r  say)  affords  not  the  slightest  indication  of  the  prolits  realised.  In 
<aMtt:Stfact.ures  of  leather,  instanced  by  the  Senator,  the  work  turned  out  du- 
*i«E!f;  th«year  must  always  many  limes  exceed  the  capital  invested,  particu- 
'i'kt&fiii  boots  and  shoes,  for  in  that  business  few  fixtures  and  little  machinery 
'^■'inKiii.  As  well  might  the  Senator  atleinpt  to  prove  the  general  profits  of 
VieijS,  by  the  products  of  the  small  portion  cultivated  for  gardens,  as  to  show 
■fce-oit"  manufactures  by  the  data  he  has  chosen. 

S*tMfits  depend  on  two  things;  Isl,  whether  the  articles  produced  sell  or 
»«itf.&r  more  than  it  cost  to  make  them  ;  and,  2d,  whelher  enough  of  them 
s*!gH!iMiuced  to  afford  a  proCt  upon  the  permanent  investment  in  the  business, 
ffi/slnrns,  such  as  the  Sen»u)r  has  read,  can  in  no  manner  show  what  re- 
•jffjSiar  profits  and  losses  are;  and  no  man  acqutunted  with  business  will  be 
•s«p««c-ed  Ijy  them.  It  is,  however,  notorious,  that  for  nearly  a  year  after 
■Jiaf.jiuassage  of  the  present  Taiilf,  manufactures  and  business  of  every  sort 
«i!iii(«st  labored  under  severe  depression,  rnid  were  conducted  at  a  Joss.  If 
sasy  esl^blishment  made  money,  it  was  by  holding  their  gootis,  made,  when 
^oeiTAvas  at  a  very  low  price,  and  selling  those  goods  when  a  large  advance 
,c£saii 2>£kcn  place  in  the  material  and  the  manufactured  article.     But  they 


11 

who  had  cnpilal  to  do  lliis,  could  have  made  as  much,  or  more,  bj'  purcfaa©-- 
ing,  and  lioldiiig  for  a  rise  in  tlie  market,  coitori — an  article  which  baa-  sxi- 
vanced  more  than  any  oilier  important  one  thai  I  know.  In  a  word,  nil 3«je&c 
operations  arelo  be  ^et  down  as  casual  merely,  and  speculative.  Such  R:«gi",.. 
at  limes,  repair  the  losses,  or  add  to  the  profits  of  manufacturings  or  of  e^kau 
sorts  of  business,  but  form  no  proper  pari  of  it,  or  of  the  estimate  of  its- ^ot»- 
fils,  at  whichyeu  can  only  arrive  by  ascertaining  what  has  been  the  eeet  aS 
producing  an  article,  and  what  its  market  value  at  the  time,  so  as- to  3?» 
whether  the  result  is  a  gain  or  a  loss. 

But  one  other  reason  uiged  by  the  Senator  from   Missouri  for  the  fisssfiiv- 
mental  change  wliich  he  proposes   requires  an  answer,  which  is,  thai   2®«- 
tux  imposed  upon  consumers  by  the  present  system  is  highly  burdeiiserae, 
I  cannot,  however,  reconcile  with   this  assumption  the  tables  produGes^  Ity 
the  Senator  himself.     The«e  show  that,  in   his  model  year  of  1808,  tJJsgse- 
was  collected,  under  what  lie  calls  the  low  duty  system,  from  seven  miE&cio- 
of  people,  a  revenue  of  above  .i*  16, 000, 000,  or  above  '^2^  per  capita.    Mnva^ 
iher  of  his  tables  shows  that,  under  this  high  duly  system,  there  wa.s  fev.fsrj^ . 
in  1840,  from  seventeen  millions  of  people, not  quite  ^\  1,000,000,  or  a  lmY»c 
less  than  67  cenis per  capita.     Under  the  present  law  he  says  we  have,  £4s6- 
nng  the  last  year,  scarcely  been  able  to  collect  .^17,500,000,  or  a  ta.^s  H^iaa;-- 
eveiy  man  of  about  one  dollar.    The  Senator  himself,  very  sirawgely  biitTssi^  . 
truly,  said  that,  in  proportion  lo  population,  there  should  have  been  cotfesta^  ' 
.i)ii46,000,000.     If  the  amount  collected  did  not  exceed  two-fifths  of  thc-l-ai**- 
dens  of  his  own  fortunate  system  in   its  favorite  year,  I  see  not  how  he  caaw 
call  this  oppressive  ;  aud,  at  any  event,  I  do  not  think  that  the  consurfjers^^ 
who  paid  but  §17,500,000  instead  of  ^'46,000,000,  have  any  reason  fo>cs**> 
plain.     Tliis  year,  when  a  revenue  sulhcienl  to  defray  all  the  expensa&'  »6V 
the  Government  shall  have  been  collected,  the  ta.x,  in  proportion  to  pojuQ&t- 
lion,  will  otdy  be  about  half  of  what  it  was  in  the  pattern  year  of  the  s^s^ 
(em  to  which  the  Senator  would  have  us  leturn. 

Sensitive  as  the  people  of  this  country  very  properly  are  in  the  mt»ir*EJ^' 
(axes,  it  is  important  thai  this  part  of  the  subject  should  be  explaine{f,-3>aL«i!- 
not  he  allowed  to  take  that  piominence  as  a  political  issue,  which  I-9*a- 
Trade  Senators  wish  lo  give  it.  I  must  therefore  proceed  lo  examine  se^jff 
of  theaiguments  and  allegations  of  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshipt-,  C&.- 
VVooDBURY,)  who  has  attempted,  in  his  very  labored  effort  during  the  etvsliRS 
part  of  this  debate,  to  prove  that  this  TarifiT  of  1842  imposes  burdeiK  a^nK- 
llie  people  more  oppressive  than  any  preceding  one. 

Arguing  lo  tliis  effect,  and  urging  the  inunediate  overthrow  of  the  pres^afc- 
system,  he  says  he  has  high  authority  for  asking  this  of  the  very  frierwS^F  liK 
(he  present  act.     I  will  give  his  own  language: 

"  Mr.  Clay,  in  a  letter  written  last  September,  says,  concerning  the  tarifTof  ld42;  'If  Jtterar 
be  any  excesses  or  defects  in  it,  (of  wliicli  I  have  not  the  means  of  judging,)  they  oug^S t».ft«- 
correcled.'  ISiit  as  to  the  tariff  of  1828,  he  was  vdl  ucquuinkd  vi\{.\\  'the  oii'ci(tnslo7i«s'.eiii<wi 
gave  bhih' to  thai.  'They  are  highly  diacreditable  to  American  legislation;'  and  that' t»3»-j.v 
'  hiW;  (ui-iy','  'eminently  deserving  tliat  denomination.'  Now,  those  well  acquainted  witB  ««!» 
acl^of  184-3,  know  it  to  be  not  only  as  high  a  tariff,  in  many  respects,  as  lliat  of  182&(  Batiii- 
some,  higher;  and  if  the  former  was  on  that  account  discreditable  lo  .linerican  legisltUicriti.'Ha-- 
is  worse,  and  therefore  should  be  at  once  corrected.  Other  circumstances  connected  «riljli.>)jfc 
were  similar.  It  originated  in  importunities  from  only  one  small  class  in  society;  wa*  ps.TiiaAJ 
and  unequal  in  its  burdens  for  then-  benefiLs ;  and  tended  to  exact  tribute  fro  n  tlie  rest  Ji  2«ifr 
tain  them  alone.  Did  any  gentleman  who  had  not  examined  tlie  details  critically,  deercj  tSi»>abi 
mere  opinion  founded  on  loose  generalities,  and  consider  it  impossible  that,  after  the  Sriai'in^l- 
fects  which  iloweil  from  the  high  tariff  of  1828,  a  majority  of  any  Congress  could  pmeeati'  I'A  ■ 
renew  several  duties  quite  as  high,  and  indeed  much  higher?  Let  him,  then,  look  to  tfeo-.-w* 
corded  facts  in  our  own  statute  books,  from  which  a  tabular  statement  has  been  compifeei^cl^ 
me,  a  few  items  in  which  I  will  take  the  liberty  to  read." 


12 

The  Sena(or's  (able  referred  to  is  the  following  : 

Several  articles  xeliith  pay  a  higher  duty  by  the  tariff  of  ]842  than  that  of  1828. 


Articles. 

18^8. 

1842. 

Boots,  iUk    - 

_ 

. 

_ 

30  cents  per  pair 

40  cents  per  pair. 

Coal— 

6  cents  per  bushel. 

at  28  bushels 

per  ton 

_ 

_ 

1.48) 
1.30  S 

at  25  net 

_ 

_ 

_ 

§1  50. 

Cordage,  tarred 

- 

- 

- 

4  cents  per  pound 

4i  cents  per  pound. 

Cottons" 

- 

- 

- 

80  per  cent. 

100  per  cent. 

Cotton-bagging 

<  3J  cents  per  square  ) 
\      yard.                        S 

4  cents  per  square  yd.  and 

5  if  gunny  cloth. 

Cotton  laces 

- 

- 

- 

121  per  cent 

20  per  cent. 

(flass,  some  kinds 

- 

- 

- 

400  per  cent. 

500  or  more. 

Glass  bottles 

- 

- 

- 

§2  to  §3  per  dozen 

m  to  4. 

■Molasses 

- 

- 

- 

5  cents  per  gallon   ' 

51  on  weight. 

Saddlery       - 

- 

- 

- 

25  per  cent. 

30  per  cent. 

Shoes,  -ome 

- 

- 

- 

25  cents  per  pair 

30  per  cent. 

Silks,  some  - 

- 

- 

- 

20  per  cent. 

30  to  GO  per  cent. 

Steel,  per  cwt. 

- 

- 

- 

81  50    - 

$2  50. 

Twine 

Ware,  crockery 

- 

- 

- 

5  cents  per  pound 

6  cents  per  pound. 

- 

- 

- 

20  per  cent. 

30  per  cent. 

Ware,  japanned 

- 

- 

- 

25  per  cent. 

30  per  cent. 

Wollcns,  some 

- 

- 

- 

50  per  cent.        -             - 

40  to  67  per  cent. 

Wollens,  camlets 

' 

— 

- 

15  per  cent. 

20  per  cent. 

•  On  one  kind  of  cottons,  such  as  printed  handkerchiefs,  the  duty  is  more  than  a  hundred 

per  cent,  higher  than  in  1828;  and  many  of  the  specific  duties  in  this  table  would  be  much 
more  above  those  in  1828,  if  reduced  to  a  scale  ad  valorem. 

The  Senator  from  JNew  Hampshire  proceeded  to  say : 

"Here  are  eighteen  distinct  articles,  each  of  which  is  higher,  under  the  present  Tariff,  than 
that  of  1838.  Among  them  are  the  important  items  of  cordage,  cotton  cloths,  cotton  bagging, 
some  kinds  of  glass,  iron,  shoes  and  boots,  with  molasses,  crockeryware,  and  wollens." 

After  a  variety  of  conimenis,  and  a  declaration  that  among  the  articles 
which  paid  lower  duties  by  the  bill  of  1828  than  in  that  of  1842  are  found 
the  great  necessaries  of  life,  equally  used  "  in  the  log  cabin  and  tiie  palace," 
professing  to  have  shown  thai  the  former  bill  was  far  less  burdensome  than 
the  latter,  he  asks:  "  Can  any  one  say  that  if  the  act  of  1S2S  was  high  or 
<liscreditai)le,  or  a  bill  of  abominations,  this  is  not  h'gher  and  more  dis- 
creditable?" 

A  strong  arraignment  this  is  of  the  law  and  of  us  who,  in  this  body,  so 
recently  voted  for  it ;  nor  less  a  strong  appeal  to  the  friends  of  the  distin- 
guished statesman  cited — among  both,  I  number  myself. 

I  need  not  dwell  upon  the  letter  which  the  Senator  refers  to,  though  its 
coHtents  point,  as  I  lake  it,  at  some  who  were  said  to  have  procured  the  in- 
sertion in  the  bill  of  182S  (perhaps  under  instructions)  of  provisions  more 
burdensome  than  the  real  friends  of  protection  desired.  But  I  will  rather 
proceed  to  the  Senator's  charges,  and  to  his  specifications  set  forth  in  his  tab- 
ular statentent,  as  proofs  that  the  existing  law  is  worse,  more  oppressive,  more 
exorbitant,  than  the  '•  bill  of  abominations." 

These  "facts"  make  the  whole  foundation  of  the  Senator's  argument. 
The  Senator's  friends  (not  less  than  himself)  give  great  importance  to  what 
he  has  thus  adduced,  and  speak  of  this  part  of  his  argument  as  highly  con- 
clusive. I  have  therefore  looked  into  "the  sialuie  book''  at  the  law  of 
182S,  the  soiuce  from  which   he  says  he  compiled  his  "  talndar  statement." 

I  find  that,  of  his  eighteen  articles  thus  compared  in  the  two  acts,  there 
are  no  less  than  ten  on  which  no  duty  is  imposed  by  the  act  of  1828  ;  they 
are  not  mentioned  in  it  at  all.     These  ten  are  boots,  coal,  cordage,  cotton 


13 

lace,  saddlery,  shoes,  twine,  crockery  ware,  Japanned  ware,  woollen  camlets. 
Sucli  is  the  exactness  with  which  the  Senator's  researches  have  been  con- 
ducted. Now,  no  one  will  pretend  that  the  comparison  of  those  ten  articles 
lias  anv  thing  to  do  with  the  question  of  which  is  higliest,  the  act  of  1S28, 
oriliatof  1842? — the  purposes  for  which  they  were  so  triumphantly  paraded. 
[Mr.  Woodbury  here  said  that  tiie  act  of  1828  left  these  previous  duties 
at  this  rate,  if  it  did  not  impose  them.] 

Mr.  SiM.Moxs  :  Sir,  that  is  not  what  the  speech  says,  and  has  nothing  to 
do  wilh  the  comparison  of  the  two  acts  with  each  other.  These  ten  articles, 
and  the  duties  on  them,  belong  to  some  other  acts ;  and  the  question  here  is, 
not  whether  the  act  of  1842  may  not  be  higher,  in  some  particulars,  than 
some  other  act  wiiich  may  be  found,  but  whether  or  not,  in  this  comparison, 
it  is  higher  than  that  of  1828. 

But  take  it  even  on  his  own  grounds,  as  he  would  bow  explain,  and  it 
will  fare  little  better  with  him.  For  instance,  as  to  boots :  he  said  the  duty, 
by  the  act  of  1828,  was  30  per  cent.,  and  40  per  cent,  by  that  of  1842.  Of 
silk  boots,  he  said  nothing;  but  in  his  table  he  sets  them  down  at  30  cents 
duty  in  1828,  and  40  cents  in  1842.  But  there  is  no  such  duly  in  either 
law.  On  boots,  both  men's  and  women's,  for  many  years  before  1828,  the 
duty  was  ,fl  50  per  pair;  by  the  law  of  1842,  it  is  !j;l  25  on  men's,  and 
50  cents  on  women's:  so  that  the  duty  left  by  the  act  of  1828  was  20  per 
cent,  higher  on  men's  boots,  and  300  per  cent,  higher  on  women's,  than  the 
act  of  1842.  Coal  (his  next  article)  was  also  higher ;  it  was  six  cents  per 
bushel,  equal  to  $2  16  the  chaldron,  estimated  at  2,400  pounds.  The  for- 
mer duly  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds,  would  be  $2  01  ;  the  present  is  $1  75, 
or  2(5  cents  less  per  ton. 

The  Senator's  arithmetic  is  mysterious.  His  table  says  "  coal,  (in  1828,) 
6  cents  per  bushel,  at  28  bushels  per  ton,  is  .$1  48  ;  at  25  bushels  net,  is 
$1  30."  Now,  6  times  28  is,  in  common  arithmetic,  %\  68;  and  6  times 
25  is  1 1   .50. 

Cordage  comes  next.  If  he  means  (as  he  says)  such  as  is  used  "  alike  m 
logcabin  and  palace,"  surely  it  is  not  "tarred"  cordage  ;  yet  he  sits  down 
tarred  cordage  because  the  duty  has  been  raised  half  a  cent  upon  it.  Now, 
the  only  sort  referred  to  in  his  speech,  and  used  in  either  "  log-cabin  or 
palace,"  is  at  a  lower  duty  under  this  than  the  laws  before  1828. 

The  rest  of  the  ten  articles,  not  in  the  act  of  1828,  do  not  pay  more  thaa 
what  the  Senator  calls  a  revenue  standard  of  duty,  or  30  per  cent.  Cotton 
lace  and  camlets  pay  but  20  per  cent. ;  twine  alone  pays  an  augmented  rate, 
but  is  a  veiy  unimportant  article. 

The  Senator's  remaining  eight  articles,  (silks,  steel,  glass,  glass  bottles, 
cotton  manufactures,  woollens,  cotton  bagging,  molasses,)  as  they  are  in- 
cluded in  both  bills,  do  furnish  the  means  of  the  comparison  which  the 
■Senator  proposes. 

Upon  the  two  first,  (silks  and  steel,)  it  is  not  pretended  that  more  than  a 
revenue  duty  is  imposed.  The  duty  upon  silks  took  its  present  form  of  a 
specific  duly  on  (he  pound,  at  the  instance  of  our  own  merchants  engaged 
in  the  trade,  who  recoiumended  this  as  the  best  means  of  preventing  fre- 
quent frauds.  By  their  computation,  the  duly  is  25  per  cent,  on  the  foreign 
cost ;  but  since  there  are  no  manufactories  of  silk  in  this  country  that  I  know 
of,  h  cannot  Ije  pretended  that  even  this  moderate  duty  is  for  the  benefit  of 
manufacturers,  in  the  sense  the  Senator  speaks  of  them.  Yet  the  Senator 
exhibits,  in  another  table,  the  different  duties  on  raw  silk  and  manufactured, 
•to  show  that  the  act  of  1842  discriminates  for  manufacturers  against  farmers  I 


14 

when  the  fact  is,  that  both  raw  and  manufactured  is  the  production  of  farm- 
ers alone. 

As  to  steel :  the  duties  on  the  kinds  principally  imported,  ^casl,  shear,  and 
German,)  are  now  the  same  as  in  1S28,  and  very  light,  but  from  10  lo  20' 
per  cent.  Other  kinds,  for  which  we  do  not  entirely  depend  on  imporiation,, 
receive  some  protection  ;  they  pay  $2  50  per  112  pounds,  or  from  25  to  30 
per  cent.  The  Senator's  table  hides  the  main  fact,  (the  duties  upon  the 
kinds  principally  imported,)  and  exhibits  only  ihe  exceptions. 

Of  glass,  the  Senator  says  that  the  duty  was  400  per  cent,  in  182S,  and 
500  per  cent,  or  mote  by  the  act  of  1842.  By  the  act  of  182S,  but  one 
duly  is  laid  on  glass;  that  is,  on  window  glass  more  than  10  by  15  inches 
in  size  ;  the  duty  was  .$5  per  100  feel.  Is  that  400  percent?  Did  the 
jSenator  ever  hear  of  glass  of  large  size  at  $1  25  per  100  square  feet?  I 
find  that,  for  years  back,  the  contracts  of  our  (Commissioner  of  Public  Build- 
ings have  been  at  fiom  .*)20  to  .$37  for  100  feet,  varying  according  to  the 
size  and  quality.  By  the  present  act,  the  duties  range  from  $2  to  $10,  ac- 
cording to  size  and  qualitj-.  In  both  laws,  the  duties  may  be  from  30  to 
40  per  cent.,  instead  of  the  Senators  400  and  500. 

Of  glass  boilles,  but  one  kind  is  taxed  by  the  law  of  1828,  and  that  at 
$1  75  the  gross — not  $2  to  $3,  as  the  table  says.  The  same  article  pays 
the  same  duly  under  the  present  act,  and  not  from  $2  50  to  $4. 

The  remaining  articles  are  of  larger  production  and  use,  and  deserve  more 
attention. 

On  cotton  goods,  the  Senator  said  the  duties  had  been  advanced,  by  the 
act  of  1842,  20  percent,  beyond  those  of  1828.  When  I  warned  him  that 
this  was  an  error,  he  explained  by  another  error  :  he  said  that,  by  the  law 
of  1828,  the  minimum  valuation  of  printed  cotton  goods  was  tixed  at  30 
cents  the  square  yard,  and  the  duty  at  25  per  cent,  upon  that  value  ;  while 
the  act  1S42  retains  the  same  valuation,  and  imposes  a  duty  of  30  per  cent. 
The  Senator  is  wrong  on  both  sides — the  value  was  not  30  cents  in  1828, 
nor  the  same  in  1842  as  1828. 

The  minimum  of  the  act  of  1828,  was  35  cents  on  all  cottons,  not  30 
cents ;  and  the  act  of  1842,  instead  of  a  fixed  one  of  35  cents,  divides 
them  into  three  classes,  valued  at  20,  30,  and  35  cents,  laying  on  all  a  rate 
of  30  per  cent. 

Now,  100  yards  of  each  kinH  would  pay,  by  the  act  of  1828,  $26  25; 
and  by  the  act  of  1842,  $25  50— or  75  cents  less  upon  the  300  yards,  in- 
-stead  of  the  Senator's  20  per  cent.  more.  The  last  act,  besides,  favors  a 
lower  description  of  goods. 

On  woollens,  by  the  act  of  1S28,  the  duties  were  45  to  50  per  cent.,  with 
a  system  of  minimums,  which  increased  the  rate  to  about  55  per  cent.  It 
was  these  minimimis  which  excited  the  chief  iTiurmuis  that  broke  out 
iigainst  that  act.     By  the  present  law,  there  is  an  even  rale  of  40  per  cent. 

On  cotton  bagging,  the  duty  of  1828  was  4i  and  5  cents  the  squaro 
yard — not  3i,  as  the  table  says.  It  is  now  one  cent  lower,  instead  of  half 
a  cent  higher;  and  is  not  25  per  cent,  on  the  value  at  the  time  when  im- 
posed.    As  to  gunny  cloth,  it  was  not  known  in  1828. 

On  molasses,  the  duty  now  is  4.^  mills  per  pound — estimated,  when  im- 
■})osed,  at  not  quite  5  cents  the  gallon  ;  the  Senator  estimates  it  at  5^,  and 
states  the  duty  of  1828  at  5  cents  ;  but  he  is  utterly  mistaken  :  the  duly  of 
1828  was  10  cents  the  gallon,  or  twice  the  present  rate. 

I  have,  Mr.  President,  been  thus  minute,  in  order  thoroughly  to  explode. 
the  Senator's  compnrison,  and  show  that,  insietid  of  being  higher  in  these 
eighteen  selected  articles,  the  Tarilf  of  1842  is  generally  lower  than  by 


15 

the  act  of  1828,  or  the  preceding  ones,  which  he  now  seeks  to  make  a  part 
of  it.  But  a  single  inconsiderable  article,  (twine,)  and  a  variety  of  another, 
(some  sorts  of  steel,)  are  higher  than  in  these  former  acts ;  while  all  the 
-important  articles  have  been  reduced,  some  of  them  greatly. 

There  is  nothing  left  upon  which  the  Senator's  charge  against  the  act 
of  1842,  or  its  authors,  can  be  sustained.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  his 
part  to  retract  it ;  and,  in  order  that  the  public  may  be  no  longer  misled 
'by  his  table,, to  adi-iiit  that  it  is  erroneous.  If  he  desires  it,  I  will  now  give 
way  that  he  may  do  so. 

[Here  Mr.  S.  paused  slightly.] 

I  am  sorry  the  honorable  Senator  declines  what  is  due  both  to  the  public 
and  himself;  and  I  say  it  with  unaflected  regret,  that  I  shall  be  coinpelled, 
in  order  to  repel  his  charge,  to  make  an  exposition  which  will  place  a  dis- 
tinguished Senator  under  the  possible  imputation  of  having  either  designed 
a  wicked  deception,  or  the  fact  (little  better')  of  having  persisted  (after  hav- 
ing been  shown  better)  in  what  has  that  eti'ect. 

[Mr.  VVoouBURY  now  rose  and  said,  that  he  had  intended  to  make  an 
explanation  after  having  further  consulted  the  acts.  He  would  now  ad- 
mit, that  he  had  been  mistaken  as  to  the  duties  on  cotton  bagging  and  mo- 
lasses ;  and  lie  made  some  further  explanations  as  to  cottons  and  woollens.} 
Mr.  SiMMoivs:  Sir,  I  had  expected  a  full,  unqualified  retraction.  It 
was  due  from  the  Senator,  that  the  the  public  might 'be  disabused  of  the 
erroneous  statements  spread  and  accredited  by  his  speech.  He  has  endea- 
vored to  fix  upon  those  who  supported  this  bill  of  1S42,  a  strong  reproach, 
invoking  even  for  this  purpose  the  name  and  authority  of  an  eminent  and 
an  honest  friend  of  protection.  All  his  charges  being  enliiely  disproved, 
and  the  chief  of  them  shown  to  be  gross  errors,  he  should  certainly,  as  the 
only  atnends  he  could  make,  have  withdrawn  them  altogether. 

I  will  now  pass  to  the  argument  of  the  honorable  Senator  who  present- 
ed the  bill  before  us,  (Mr.  McDuffie.) 

[At  this  point,  Mr.  S.  gave  way  to  a  motion  ef  adjournment.  When  the 
subject  was  again  reached  in  the  morrow's  pioceedings,  he  continued  as 
follows  :] 

Mr.  PitEstDENT — To  the  comparison  which,  adopting  the  great  divisions 
of  time  of  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  I  yesterday  made  of  what  he  calls 
"the  low  duly  period"  and  the  "high  duty  period,"  that  Senator  seemed 
to  object.  I  showed  that,  during  his  first  period,  the  duties  averaged  19^ 
per  cent,  on  all  the  importations  retained  in  the  country,  and  25  per  cent, 
during  his  second,  while  at  present  they  make  about  22  per  cent.  Tlie 
Senator  thought  it  unfair  to  include  in  the  first  esiitnate  the  period  of  the 
ehibargo  and  the  war.  Now,  since  the  laws  continued  the  same,  and  the 
amoimt  only,  not  the  rate  of  duties,  was  airected,  I  see  not  the  force  of 
the  objection.  But,  to  remove  all  objection,  I  have  caused  to  be  prepared 
tables  showing  the  average  rate  of  duties  up  to  1SU8,  inclusive  : 

Value  of  imports  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  from  1791  to  1808,  inclusive      -        §1,395,997,964 
Value  of  exports  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  from  1791  to  1808,  inclusive      -  508,700,881 

Value  of  imports  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  consumed,  from  1791  to  1808,  inc.  88;<7,297,r83 

Total  net  revenue  from  duties  on  imports,  from  1791  to  1808,  inclusive      -  $163,982,713 

Proportionate  per  cenloge  of  revenue  from  duties  on  imports,  of  the  value 
of  imports  of  foieign  produce,  &c.,  consumed  in  the  Uniied  States,  from 
17U1  to  1SU8,  inclusive       -     .        -  -  -  -  -  -         13i  per  cent. 


16 

It  is  18^  per  cent.     The  average  of  1810  and  1811  (years  of  no  embar- 
go) is  also  exliibited,  and  proves  lo  be  22  per  cent. : 

Value  of  imports  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  for  1810  and  ISll,  inciusive          -  §138,800,000 

Value  of  exports  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  for  1810  and  1811,  inclusive          -  40,414,085 

Value  of  imports  of  foreign  produce,  &c.,  consumed  for  1810  and  1811         -  $98,385,915 

Total  net  revenue  from  duties  on  imports  in  1810  and  1811   -            ...  $21,890,532 

Proportionate  per  centage  which  revenue  from  duties  on  imports  bear  to  the 

value  of  imports  consumed  in  the  United  States  in  1810  and  181 1  -            -  22  per  cent. 


From  1804  to  1812,  I  do  not  find  that  the  rates  of  duty  were  changed. 
In  181?  they  were  increased  ;  but  httle  was  imporled  nnder  tliat  act,  until 
after  the  peace.  Tliose  years  are  omitted.  From  1790  to  1804,  tiiere 
were  frequent  modifications  of  duties,  generally  increasing  them.  Though 
the  ad  vcdorein  duties  were  low,  (averaging  fiom  5  to  10  per  cent.,)  and 
Usually  confined  to  articles  not  of  home  production,  the  specific  duties  were 
of  course  enough  higher  than  iS\  per  cent,  to  bring  up  the  general  rate  to 
that.  On  whatever  interfered  with  our  own  productions,  specific  duties 
were  generally  placed,  and,  as  compared  with  the  vahie  of  the  article,  were 
much  liigher  than  the  other  rates.  For  instance,  salt,  in  1797,  paid  a  duty 
of  20  ceiits  the  busliel. 

Another  objection  to  my  comparison  was,  that  it  included  all  the  free 
goods  and  specie.  But,  since  there  were  no  means  of  distinguishing  these 
during  the  first  period,  I  was  compelled  to  include  them  for  both  :  it  was 
the  faiiest  comparison  that  could  be  made.  Besides,  I  see  no  sort  of  reason 
to  suppose  that  these  do  not  bear  the  same  proportion  to  the  imports  at  one 
period  as  the  other.  But,  under  the  present  act,  I  have  obtained  the  rates 
on  the  whole  imports  retained  in  the  country,  and  also  those  on  the  dutia- 
ble articles  alone,  so  as  to  present  the  matter  under  every  desirable  aspect. 

My  object  was  to  let  it  appear  whether  or  not  there  was,  during  these 
contrasted  periods,  the  oppressive  disparity  which  the  Senator  had  labored 
to  prove,  and  which  he  thought  had,  for  twenty-five  years,  crushed  our 
agriculture,  reaching  even  "the  ox  that  licked  the  salt."  But  I  have 
shown  that  the  revenue  collected  under  the  present  law  is  not  half  as  much 
to  each  inhabitant  as  it  was  in  what  he  entitles  "  the  low  duty  period." — 
This,  I  cheerfully  admit,  is  not  because  the  rates  of  duty  are  now  lower; 
but  because  our  people  are  now  less  dependent  on  foreign  smpply.  The 
average  duties  are  now  about  as  in  1810  and  1811,  nnder  the  act  of  1804  ; 
and  they  are  3  per  cent,  more  than  the  average  up  to  1808  ;  and,  upon  the 
dutiable  goods  alone,  they  were  38Jr  per  cent.  The  average  of  the  duties 
last  year  wasi  21  i  per  cent. 

It  was  also  objected  that  niy  estimate  incltidod  all  the  imporis,  du- 
tiable- and  free.  I  do  not  see  how  the  question  as  to  the  oppression  of 
our  agriculture  is  afiected  by  this,  or  wliy  it  is  not  the  same  to  consu- 
mers whether  the  public  revenue  is  derived  from  half  the  articles  imported 
or  from  all.  Consumers  paid,  last  year,  but  about  one  dollar  for  each  inha- 
bitant. Now,  whether  this  was  collected  from  ten  articles  or  five,  I  do  not 
perceive  that  it  could  grind  and  crush  the  husbandman  either  way,  or  more 
in  one  way  than  the  other.  But  the  advocates  of  Free  Trade  should  be 
the  last  lo  make  such  a  complaint,  for  they  claim,  or  some  of  them,  to  have 
introduced,  for  the  benefit  of  the  yeotnainy,  the  largest  exemptions  from 
duty — those  of  tea  and  colTec. 

They  who  favor  protection  insist  that,  by  thus  discriminating,  a  part  of 
the  burden  of  the  tax  .may  be  thrown  on  the  foreign  producer:  this,  the 


17 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Finance  has,  I  think,  very  clearly  proven. 
But,  let  it  be  ever  so  disputable  tvho  pays  the  duty,  it  is  at  least  ceriain 
that  the  amount  is  no  greater  in  one  of  these  forms  than  the  oiher. 

After  this  brief  explanation,  I  return  to  the  argument  of  the  honorable 
Senator  frem  South  Carolina,  who  has  introduced  the  bill  before  us.  If, 
in  stating  the  points  he  made,  I  mistake  any  one  of  them,  I  shall  take  '.t  as 
a  kindness  to  be  set  riglil ;  for  1  wish  to  present  any  argument  to  which  I 
attempt  to  reply,  precisely  as  it  was  understood  by  him  who  advanced  it. 

The  Senator's  reasoning  commands  my  respect,  for  the  acuteness  and 
ability  it  displays.  I  had  hoped,  however,  to  be  spared  any  reply  to  that 
part  of  his  speech  which  imputes  to  the  friends  of  protection  a  "  fou!  and 
faithless  desertion  of  the  Compromise  Act." 

[Mr.  McDuFFiE  here  said  lie  had  intended  nothing  disrespectAil  to  the 
Senators  who  voied  for  the  bill  of  1S42.] 

Mr.  Simmons  :  I  am  glad  lo  be  relieved  from  the  duty  of  giving  the  pro- 
ceedings on  the  occasion  in  question. 

The  Senator  from  South  Carolina  says  the  efiVt  of  imposing  duties  for 
protection  is — 

1st.  To  check,  in  the  beginning,  the  importation  of  goods,  and  substi- 
tute that  of  specie. 

2d.  To  raise  the  price  of  domestic  products,  by  the  combined  efl'ect  of 
the  absence  of  foreign  competition  and  the  enlargement  of  the  currency, 
until  prices  rise  enough  to  justify  new  importation. 

3d.  That,  as  the  cost  of  production  rises  with  the  increase  of  the  curren- 
cy at  home,  the  duties  cease  to  be  an  advantage  to  the  producer,  the  profits 
become  no  greater  than  with  low  duties  or  none  ;  while,  upon  the  cotton- 
grower,  the  effect  is  to  make  him  pay  in'gher  for  his  supplies  at  home,  aiu5 
sell  lower  abroad,  through  the  diminished  circulation  there  conseriuent  up- 
on the  increased  circulation  here. 

Were  the  effect  such  as  this,  it  would  certainly  form  a  very  great  objec- 
tion to  the  system  ;  for  it  would  impose  a  great  injury  upon  one  class  of 
producers,  compensated  by  no  benefit  to  the  test.  But  to  this  reasoning  I 
must  oppose  plain  experience.  The  objections  may  be  supported  by  phi- 
losophy, but  they  are  not  by  fact.  This,  the  tables  adduced  by  the  Sena- 
tor himself,  and  appended  to  his  speech,  will  enable  me  to  show. 

In  these,  he  has  afiven  the  prices  of  manufactures  of  cotton  in  England 
and  this  country  about  a  year  ago.  As  the  fairest  object  of  comparison, 
I  will  take  the  most  important  article  in  the  tables,  namely,  printing 
cloths  and  sheetings.  Of  these,  the  various  qualities  make  up  more  than 
three-foinths  cf  American  cotton  goods.  I  will  give  from  the  tables  the 
prices  of  three  kinds  of  each  description  in  both  countries,  viz.  : 

Power  loom  print  cloths. — The  lowest  quality  given  in  the  table  is,  in 
Eng  land,  3  cents  8  mills  per  yard,  equal  to  25  cents  per  potmd.  The 
lowest  quality  of  American  in  the  tables  is  2  cents  5  mills  per  yard,  equal 
to  17  cents  per  pound. 

Of  mediuiTi  quality,  in  England,  the  price  is  given  as  i^  cents  per 
yard,  equal  to  2.5  cents  per  pound.  Medium  American,  3^  cents  per  yard, 
equal  to  21  cents  per  poimd. 

Best  quality  of  (plain  goods)  in  Englan'd,  5  cents  per  yard,  equal  to  2S 
cents  per  pound.  Best  quality  American,  4^  cents  per  yard,  equal  to  25-^- 
cenls  per  pound. 

In  every  instance  in  the  Senator's  tables,  power  loom  print  cloths  are 
lower  here  than  in  England. 

[Mr.  McDuFPrE  :  Are  the  goods  known  to  be  of  the  same  quality  ?] 


18 

Mr.  Simmons  :  This  cannot  be  posidvely  told  as  to  print  cloths,  because 
the  No.  of  the  reed  they  are  wove  in  is  omitted  in  the  tables  as  to  the  Amer- 
ican—why, I  cannot  say.  No  such  doubt,  liowever,  hangs  upon  the  next 
article  I  shall  examine.  This  is  what  the  table  calls  "stouis  or  domes- 
tics'-— an  article  made  in  the  closest  imitation  of  our  heavy  sheetings,  and 
often  marked,  when  sent  abroad,  with  the  name  of  some  American  estab- 
lishment.    The  tables  give  the  prices  : 

For  English  sheetings,  33  inches  wide    .  -  -  -  5^  cents  per  yard.- 

For  American,  (Boston,)  l  wide  -  -  -  .  4J     "       "       " 

Medium  English  Shirtings  -  -  -  -  -  6^     "        "       " 

Medium  American  Sheetings     -  -  -  -  .  g       n        n       >< 

Best  English  sheeting  (theciieapest  by  weight  in  the  list,  being  ^ 

2g  yards  to  the  pound)  -  -  -  -  .  73     •<        "       " 

Best  American  (Laurence)        -  -  -  -  -  G^     "       "       " 

{'These  are  the  same  weight.     The  English,  by  weight,  is  \9h  cts.  per  lb. — the  American  16^.] 

Thus,  in  every  comparison,  the  American  goods  are  cheaper  here  than 
the  English  in  Manchester,  and  all  know  tliey  are  made  of  better  cotton. 
It  is  also  noioiious  that  more  of  such  goods  are  produced  than  consumed 
in  this  country,  and  that,  of  course,  we  rely  upon  foreign  markets  for  sales 
of  this  excess.     It  is,  therefore,  certain  that  home  competition  will  restrain 
prices  within  the  rates  of  the  principal  markets  of  the  world.     This  fact 
disposes  of  the  Senator's  theory  that  the  duty  i.s  added  to  the  price  and  be- 
comes a  bounty  to  the  manufacturer,  aiid  proves  conclusively  that  tlie  pro- 
tective policy  is  safe  and  wise,  both  for  consuiriers  and  producers.     These 
facts,  when  advanced  to  prove  these  positions,  are  denied  by  our  opponents, 
and  yet,  in  the  next  breath,  ihey  urge  them  to  prove  that  protection  is  un- 
necessary.    The  Senator  from  South  Carolina  treats  the  argunient  as  ridi- 
culous whieh  tissumes  that  protection  is  needed  for  any  other  purpose  tJian 
to  increase  prices.     But  the  honorable  Senator  mistakes  both  the  reasoning 
and  the  fact,  when  he  says,  '•  They  gravely  tell  us  that  a  revenue  duly  of 
"20  percent.,  which  will  certainly  enhance  prices  20  per  cent.,  will  not  en^ 
able  them  to  maintain  a  competition  with  the  rival  manufacturer."     So  far 
from  telling  the  Senator  that  such  a  duty  will  enhance  the  price,  we  i>tter- 
ly  deny  it,  and  refer  to  the  Senator's  own  tables  for  proof.     But  we  do 
■say  that  such  a  duty  assessed  upon  the  foreign  invoice  is  inadeqate  to 
ilie  object  for  which  it  is  needed — to  secure,  what  is  indispensable  to  suc- 
cesss,  our  market  for  ourselves,  against  the  danger  of  foreign  revulsions, 
combinations,  or  other  contingencies.     It  is  admitted,  that,  when  there  is 
a  demand   for  goods  at  remunerating  prices  throughout  all  the  pioducing 
countries  for  cxjiort,  we  should  enjoy  our  mar-ket  for  the  substantial  fabrics 
with  that  rate  of  duty,  or  perhaps  none.     But  we  need  our  own  market 
most  when  na  such  demand  exists  ;  and  our  ability  to  sustain  our  business 
at  such  time,  depends  entirely  upon  its  possession.     For  the  precise  time 
when  foreigners  would  resort  to  it  to  rid  themselves  of  their  surplus,  would 
be  that  when  we  ate  burthened  with  a  surplus  of  our  own.     If,  at  such 
times,  foreign  goods  arc  not  excluded,  producing  less  will  afford  no  relief, 
because  the  market  would  still  be  oveistocked  from  abroad.     In  such  re- 
vulsions, prices  here  is  a  secondary  thought  with   foreigners,  their  maiir 
object  being  to  relieve  their  own  markets,  and  thu.s  tuainiain  their  prices 
at  home,  where  the  great  amount  of  their  productions  are  sold.     So  that 
reducing  prices  here,  under  such  circumstances,  will  not  exclude  foreign 
goods — one  decline  must  succeed  another,  until  proprietors  are  utterly  tu- 
rned, or  work  in  our  mills  is  suspended — a  disastrous  alternative,  but  for 
which  there  is  no  lemedy. 

Exposed  to  such  interruptions,  the  cost  of  production  is  increased,  for 


19 

labor  can  be  afforded  lowest  where  employrnent  is  steady.  Neither  calcu- 
lation nor  skill  can  insure  success  in  a  business  subject  to  the  revulsions 
which  would  be  incident  to  this,  should  protection  be  witlidrawn. 

The  same  series  of  facis  applies  to  the  Senator's  posiiion,  that,  if  the 
cotion-growing  States  were  remitted  to  their  natural  right  to  trade  in  the 
best  market,  they  could  exchange  iheir  labor  (or  its  products)  at  much 
greater  advantage  with  England.  His  tables  disprove  it.  But  to  show, 
besides,  that  there  are  orrent  advantages  in  a  domestic  interchange,  I  will 
give  a  slalement  of  the  results  of  an  exchange  of  one  hundred  bales  of  cot- 
ton in  eac-h  coOntry  for  heavy  sheetings — tlie  cheapest  article  in  his  long 
list,  substance  considered  : 

Comparative  Statement  of  the  effect  of  e.vchtin^ng  one  fnnidred  bales  of  cotton  for  brctcn  sheetings  in 
England  and  the  United  States,  at  the  ruling  prices  in  both  countries  for  sheetings  one  year  ago,  as 
quoted  in  Mr.  M:Duffie's  tables,  and  for  fair  cotton  eis  quoted  in  Liverpool  and  .iinerican  price  cur- 
rend  at  the  same  time. 

Amount  of  sales  in  Liverpool  of  100  bales  of  cotton    -  -  -  -        42,000  lbs. 

Draft  1  pound  per  bale,  is  100  pounds  _  _  _  _         lOO 

Tare  4  pounds  per  cwt.  on  375  cwt.  is  -  -  -  -      1,500 1,600 

40,400  lbs. 


At  4Bd.  per  pound— 8;  cents  -  -  -  -  -  -  $3,535  00 

Charges  in  the  United  States  and  Liverpool : 

Bagging,  twine,  mending,  and  marking,  - 

Wharfage,  g4  ;  cartage,  $10  ;  storage,  J8 

Fire  insurance,  $3.81 ;  postage,  &c.,  $3.50 

Mariiie  insurance,  I  per  cent,  on  jji3,578.81     - 

Policy  ______ 

Dock  dues,  =f 4  0  6  ;  town  dues,  16s.  8d.— ^4  17  2    - 

Duty  35d.  per  cwt.  on36Ucwt.  2qr.  24lb.     - 

Cartage,  porterage,  and  weighing,  .f3  14   1    - 

Canvass,  twine,  and  mending,  «t'2  9    -  -  - 

Warehouse  rent,  Id.  per  week  for  12  weeks,  .^5 

Postages  and  small  charges,  10s.  6d.  - 

Brokerage,  Jd.  per  cent. ;  insurance,  id.  per  cent. ;  3  mos.  10  ds. 
interest  discount  i;d.— 1  'd.  on  .*7°31  9  2  is  .f  13  16  I 

Freight,  at  id.  per  lb.,  on  40,41)0  lbs.  is  =f84  3  4 

Five  per  cent,  primage  on  freight,  ^'4  4  2- 

Commission  and  guaranty,  3  percent,  on  ,£736  9  2  is  .£22  1  IQi 

Three  mouihs'  mterest  on  cash  charges,  $974.70        -  -  14  62  1,023  86 

Net  amount  of  proceeds,  in  Liverpool,  of  100  bales  cotton      _  _  _  J2,5H  14 

This  amount  invested  in  best  stout  English  sheetmg,  as  quoted  in  Mr.  McDuf- 
fie's  tables,  at  3jd.— 7;  cents— per  yard,  is  30,859  yards      -  $2,391  57 

Commission  for  purchasing,  Height  from  Manchester  to  Liver- 
pool, dock  dues,  &c.,  5  per  cent.     _  _  -  -  119  57  2,511  14 


_ 

$14  50 

- 

22  00 

_ 

7  31 

_ 

35  79 

- 

1  25- 

-$80  85 

_ 

23  32 

_ 

252  50 

_ 

17  78 

_ 

11  76 

- 

24  00 
2  52 

66  26 

404  00 

20  20 

Il 

106  05 

_ 

14  62 

The  proceeds  of  100  bales  of  cotton,  invested  in  sheeting  lor  planter's  account, 

amounting  as  above  to        _------         SOjS.W  yds. 

Deduct  amount  for  freight,  insurance,  interest  on  the  goods  during  voyage  from 
Manchester  to  the  United  Slates;  also,  interest  on  cotton  to  Liverpool,  and 
time  it  remained  u-fsold  there,  and  other  charges  of  importation — 10  per  ct.  3,086  yds. 

Quantity  of  sheetings  returned  to  the  planter  -  -  _  -  _        27.733  yds. 


Proceeds  of  the  same  quantity  of  cotton  sold  in  the  U.  S.  and  invested  in  sheetings : 
lOObalesofcotlon— 42,000  pounds— at  6|  cents,  is    _  -  -  _  $2,730  00' 

Bill  of  43,750  yards  of  sheeting,  at  6 1  ceniis,  is  -  -  $2,843  75 

Deduct  8  months'  interest  for  cash     -  -  -  -  113  75  2,730  00 

Result.  ■ 

The  one  hundred  bales  of  cotton  pays  for  43,750  yards  of  sheetings — cotton  sold  and  sheetings 

bought  in  the  United  States. 
The  same  cotton  pays  for  27,773  yards  of  sheetings — cotton  sold  and  sheetings  bought  in  Eng- 
land ;  or,  in  other  words,  it  is  57  per  cent,  in  favor  of  the  American  trade,  if  the  goods 
arc  imported  free. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  planter  can  get  for  hi«  one  hundred  bales  of  cot- 
ton, in  this  couniry,  a  much  larger  amount  (57  per  cent,  more)  of  equal 
goods  than  in  England,  without  duly. 


20 

To  see  how  it  would  nftect  the  planter  and  the  country,  if  the  trade 
were  increased  as  the  Senator  proposes,  foreigners  made  its  agents  in  every 
thing  to  aid  them  to  purchase  our  cotton,  and  our  manufactures  abolished, 
I  will  consider  the  whole  cotton  crop  sold  in  England,  the  proceeds  con- 
vertad  into  cotton  goods  for  our  consumption,  and  these  imported  free  of 
duty  in  this  country,  and  also  at  his  proposed  duty  of  20  per  cent. 

This  I  illustrate  by  an  example  of  one  hundred  bales,  and  also  by  one 
embracing  a  crop  of  two  millions  of  bales  : 

Salts  of  one  hundred  hales  of  cotton  in  Liverpool,  at  prices  of  February  3,  1844,  ond  proceeds  invested 
in  best  Englisk  sheeting  at  the  English  prices,  05  per  tables  ofJ\Ir.  McDtiffie,  of  Jan.  31,  1843,  and 
sold  at  the  prices  of  last  spring,  (18-13,)  also  per  tables  of  Mr.  McDuffie,  loith  an  addition  of  25  per 
cent,  for  the  adrance  in  price  of  such  goods  during  the  past  year. 

SALES  OF  100  DALES  COTTON. 

100  bales  of  cotton      --------        42,000  lbs. 

Draft,  lib.  per  bale,  lOOlbs;  tare,  41b5.  percwt.  on  375cwt.,  1,500   -  -  1,600  lbs. 

4U,4U0  lbs. 


At  5i^<l.=llL  cents    --------  $4,646  00 

Deduct  charges  in  U.  States  and  Liverpool,  as  per  statement  No.  1,  annexed  1,023  86 

Nett  _--__----  $3,622  14 

PURCHASE  OF  SHEETING. 

Invested  in  English  sheeting  at  prices  of  1843,  with  an   advance   of  25  per 

cent,  for  rise  since : 
36,656  yards  of  sheeting,  called  in  England  "  stouts  or  domestics,"  2?,  yards  to 
the  pound,  at  3jd.=7j  cents  per  yard         -  -  -  §2,840  90 

Charges : 
Commission  for  purchasing,  freight  from  Manchester  to  Liver- 
pool, dock  dues,  &c.,  2  per  cent.      -  -  -  -  56  82 

$2,897^72 
Add  25  per  cent,  for  advance  in  price  in  English  market  since 

January,  1843        ------  724  43 S;3,622  15 

?ALES  or  SHEETIVG  IN"  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

36,6565  yds.  (at  the  same  price  of  American,  and  of  same  quality,  weighing  2j  yds.  to  the  lb., 
Laurence  C,  as  per  table,  for  spring  prices  of  1843.)  62  cts.  -  -  -  !J2,382  69 

Add  2  cents  per  yard  on  36,656j  yards  for  rise  in  price  since  January,  1843,  as 

per  table    ---------  733  14 

Charges  :  $3,115  83 

Expenses  of  importation,  'J  per  cent,  on  $3,622  15,  cost  on  shipboard    $271  65 
Labor,  cartage,  storage,  advertising,  fire  insurance,  &c.,  1  per  cent.         31  22 
Interest  for  9  months,  (sold  on  8  months'  credit,  1  month  after  re- 
ceipt,) 41  per  cent  on  $2,959  20     -  -  -  -  1.S3  16 

Commission  and  guaranty  on  gross  sales,  $3,115  83,  at  five  per  cent.       155  79 591  82 

Net  proceeds  --------  $2,524  01 

for  the  100  bales  shipped  to  Liverpool  and  invested  in  sheeling,  and  sold  in  New  York  at 
prices  of  1844,  b  ingariseofSl  percent  from  prices  of  1843. 
Now  suppose  the  lOU  bales  of  cotton  to  have  been  sold  in  this  country  at  the  prices  of  Feb.  3, 

1644,  it  would  have  been  sold  at  9j'  cents. 
100  bales  of  cotton,  42,000  pounds,  at  93  cents  -  -  .  -  $4,095  00 

Saving —  1  month  in  voyage  to  Liverpool; 

2  months  while  on  hand  there;  and 
1  month  for  return  voyage ; 
—  4  months  interest,  2  per  ceut.       -----  81  90 

~  $4,176  90 
Deduct  amount  of  sales  of  sheeting    ------  2,52401 

Difference  saved  in  selling  cotton  in  the  United  States  -  -  -       ~~$1,652~89 

The  cotton  yielding  CG  per  cent,  more  by  selling  it  in  the  United  States,  than  by  shipping  to 

Liverpool  and  importing  sheeting  and  selling  them  in  the  United  States — JI^and  this,  too, 

WITHOUT  DUTY   IN'  THIS  COUNTRY. c^^- 

The  price  of  fair  cotton  is  taken  from  Wilmer&  Smith's  PriceCurrent  of  Feb.  3,  1844.  The 
price  of  best  Knglisli  sheetmg,  and  best  American  (Laurence  C)  of  same  quality  are  taken  from 
Mr.  McDuiVie's  table  accompanying  his  speech.  < 

fd^ '"  "''^  example,  if  a  duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  had  been  computed  on  the  gonds 
imported,  it  would  have  amounted  to  $724  42,  ai>d  the  100  bales  of  cotton  would  have  net  but 
$1,799  .59  ;  and  it  would  have  produced  132  per  cent  more,  if  sold  in  this  country  ai  prices  in 
New  York  at  the  s;une  time,  (Feb,  :j,  1844,)  dsducting  one  cent  per  pound  for  charges  for 
freight  from  Southern  ports,  commission,  &c. 


21 

StalemtJil  nf  the  account  of  tirn  million  boles  of  cotton  sold  in  Liverpool  and  the  proceeds  invested  ?n 
best  En'^lish  sheeting,  (that  bein^  the  cheapest  article  according  to  sitbstance,)  and  the  sheeting  sold  in 
the  United  States  for  acco^mt  of  planters. 

■2,000,000  bales,  420  pounds  each    ------     840,000,000  lb». 

Draft,  1  pound  per  bale       -----     2,000,000  lbs. 

Tare,  4  pounds  per  cwt.  on  7,500,000  cwt.  -  -  -  30,000,000  lbs.  —  32,000,000  lbs. 

808,000,000  lbs. 


At  5jd.=ll;  cents  per  pound,  is     ------      $92,920,00000 

Deduct  charges  in  U.  States  and  Liverpool,  as  per  statement  No.  1,  annexed       20,477,200  00 

872,442,800  0« 
Purchase  of  sheeting : 

Invested  in  English  sheeting  at  prices  of  1843,  as  per  Mr.  McDuffie's  table, 
with  an  advance  of  25  per  cent  for  rise  since — 733,133,966  jards  of  sheet- 
ing, called  in  England  "stouts  or  domestics,"  weighing  2i  yards  to  the 
pound,  at  3jd,=7J  cents  per  yard,  is        -  -  -  $56,817,882  36 

Commission  for  purchasing,  freight  from  Manehester  to  Li- 
verpool, dock  duty,  &c.,  2  per  cent.  -  -  -      1,136,357  64 

$57,954,240  00 
Add  25  per  cent,  for  advance  in  price  in  English  market  since 
January,  1843     ------    14,488,560  00  —  72,442,800  00 


Sales  of  sheeting  in  the  United  Slates. 

733,133,966  yds.  (at  the  same  price  of  American,  and  of  same  quality,  weighing  2^  yards  to 
the  pound,  Laurence  C,  as  quoted  in  Mr.  McDuffie's  tables  for  spring  prices  of  1843,)  at  6^ 
cents  per  yard     --------      $47,653,707  79 

Add  2  cents  per  yard  on  733,133,966  yards,  for  rise  since  January,  1843,  as 
per  Mr.  McDuflie's  table  ------        14,662,679  32 

$62,310,387  09 
Charges : 
Expenses  of  importation,  Ih  per  cent,  on  $72,442,800,  cost  on  ship  board, 

is  -_-"----    $5,433,210  00 

Labor,  cartage,  storage,  advertising,  insurance  against  fire,  1 

per  cent.  -._---         623,163  87 

Interest  9  months,  (sold  on  8  months'  credit  one  month  after 

receipt,)  4'  percent,  on  $59,200,567  64  -  -  -      2,664,025  54 

Commission  and  guaranty  on  gross  sales,  5  per  cent  on  $62,- 

316,387  09  ------      3,115,81945—11,836,31886 


Net  proceeds,  without  duty  ------      $.50,480,168  23 

With  a  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  foreign  cost,  $72,442,800,  is  -  -        14,408,560  00 

$35,991,608  23 


Explanation  of  the  result  of  this  impolitic  routine  of  business  : 
Paid  to  English  manufacturers  for  goods  more  than  the  same  article  could  be  purchased  in  thii 
country  ---------      $10,126,412  91 

Expenses  paid  on  importing  and  selling  the  goods    -  -  -  -        11,836,218  86 

Loss  to  planters  without  duty  ------      $21,962,63177 

Duty  paid  in  this  country,  20  per  cent.         -----        14,488  560  00 

Loss  with  20  per  cent,  duty  ------      $36,451,19177 

To  have  sold  the  cotton  in  the  United  States  for  cash  at  9J  cents,  the  price  of  Feb.  3,  1844, 
it  would  have  netted  $46,268,-398  more,  or  130  per  cent,  than  if  exchanged  for  coarse  sheeting 
in  England  and  sold  m  this  country  at  prices  of  Jan.  1843,  with  two  cents  a  yard  addition  for 
rise  since.  The  consumption  of  the  United  States  of  cotton  goods  requires,  say  three-sixths 
coarse  sheeting,  drillmg,  &c.,  two-sixths  prints,  and  one-sixth  bleached  shirting,  &c.  If  such 
goods,  and  in  these  proportions,  had  been  im|.orted,  (instead  of  all  coarse  sheetings,)  the  two 
million  bales  of  cotton  would  have  netted  $37,474,728  histead  of  $35,991,608,  a  difference  of 
$1,483,120,  or  about  4  per  cent.  more. 

Since  Feb.  3,  1844,  the  time  when  the  estimates  were  made  of  the  price  of  cotton  in  both 
countries,  it  has  receded  U  cents  per  pound.  If  we  estimate  at  present  prices  for  the  crop,  it 
would  yield  in  the  I'nited  States  $69.36l),00il.  As  the  return  in  cotton  goods  of  the  most  favo- 
rable descriptions  (brown  sheeting,  prints,  and  bleached  shirting)  for  the  crop  sold  in  Europe, 
yields  $37,474,  728,  the  difference  between  selling  and  investing  in  England,  and  selling  here, 
-would  be  but  $31,885,272,  or  about  85  per  cent,  more,  by  selling  in  the  United  States. 


22 

Let  us  contrast  the  effect  of  this  foreign  plan,  as  presented  in  the  foregoing  table,  with 
the  result  of  ihe  American  system  of  trade  and  commerce  upon  the  same  crop  of  cotton. 

Of  a  crop  of  2,000.(100  bales,  say  \  is  consumed  in  this  country,  and  J  in  foreign  countries : 
500,000  bales,  210,000,000  pounds,  worth  in  the  Northern  markets  February  1, 

1844,  at  )0J  cents  --------       §22,375,000 

Expenses : 
Freights  and  shipments,  coastwise,  secured  bylaw  to  Americans,  and  labor,  &c., 

at  one  cent  per  ponnd  _----_-  2,100,000 

In  Southern  ports — for  planters  _  .  -  _         20,275,000 

1,500,000  bales  sent  to  foreign  countries,  and  sold  at  the  same  prices  at  which 

itruled,  Feb'ry  3,  1841,  5i'd.=l|!   cents  on  606.0(1(1,(100,  is        gBU, 690,000 
Paid  American  ship  owners,  merchants,  &c.,  for  freight  and 

commission  _  _  -  _        ^10,114,800 

Paid  foreign  duties,  dock  dues,  &c.     -  -  5,243,100  —    15,357,900  —    54,339,100 

Net  amount  to  planters  for  crop  --___-         71,607,100 

Deduct  amount  of  same  crop  received  when  disposed  of  upon  foreign  system  37,474,728 

Ditfercnce  in  favor  of  planters  of  the  American  over  the  foreign  system        $37,132,372 

Let  us  present  the  effect  upon  the  whole  country. 

The  1,500,000  bales  sold  m   Europe,  including  freight,  &c.,  paid  (o  Americans,  (if  invested,) 
in  such  merchandise  as  is  required  in  the  United  States,  will  sell  for  enough  to  pay  cost  and 
charges,  as  follows : 
Sales  of  cotton  abroad  -  _  _  _  _        $69,690,000 

Less  amount  paid  foreigners,  duties,  dock  dues,  &c.    -  -  5,243,100  —  $64,446,900 

Add  charges  abroad  for  purcliasing,  2  per  cent.  -  _  _  -  1,288,936 

6.5,735,836 
Add.freight  and  charges  to  United  States,  7;  per  cent.  _  _  _  4,930,187 


$70,606,623 
Of  this  amount,  say  3  are  dutiable  goods,  at  30  per  cent,  on  $47,111,032,  is    -  14,133,321 


84,799,947 
Interest  and  profit  and  small  charges,  10  per  cent.       _  _  _  _  8,479,994 


The  value  of  the  goods  in  the  United  States     -  -  -  _  93,279. 941 

Of  which  there  would  be  to  pay  planters  for  net  sales  abroad  -  -  51,332,100 

38,956,841 
Deduct  for  charges  in  England  -  _  _  _  _  1,288,93& 


Leaving  to  distribute  between  the   Government,  ship  owners,  laborers, 
merchants,  &c.         ------  -        $37,767,905 


The  500,000  bales,  manufactured  in  this  country,  would  produce  three  times 

the  value  of  the  raw  cotton  ---___        $67,125,000 

To  pay  planters  in  Southern  shipping  ports    -----  20,275,000 

Leaving  to  distribute  amongst  laborers,  mechanics,  manufacturers,  mer- 
chants, ship  owners,  and  farmers      -----        $46,8.')0,00O 

The  entire  value  of  the  cotton  crop,  according  to  the  American  system,  to  wit : 
500,00(1  bales  manufactured  ------        $67,125,000 

1,500,000  bales  shipped  abroad,  freights,  duties,  &c.   -  -  -  -  93,279,941 


Of  which  the  cotton  planter  would  receive  for  sales  in  the  U. 

States         -  -  -  -  -        $20,275,(1110 

Sales  in  foreign  countries       -  _  -  54,323,100 


160,404,941 


$74,593,100 


The  merchants,  manufacturers,  mechanics,  ship  owners,  farm- 
ers, and  laborers,  for  that  part  manufactured  in  this  coun- 
try -----        $46800,000 

For  that  part  shipped  abroad  $37,767,905 

Foreigners     -  -  -  1,288,936 38,056,841 85,806,841  —  160,404.941 


23 

By  American  system,  )  i74_598,i00— For  other  Americans,  ^4,5J7,905— Total,  3159,116,005 
^ISrcceivT'     \    37,474,428-For  other  Americans,      1,463,163-Total,       38,937,591 

Difference  in  favor  of) 

American  system    [  $.37  123,B7a— Diff.  to  other    do.       g33.n54,74-2— Total,  $120.178,414 

to  planters  )  = 

If  business  had  been  encouraged,  so  that  the  increase  of  manufactures  had  kepi 
pace  with  the  produciion  of  cotton,  we  would  now  manufacture  nearly  or  quite  the 
whole  crop,  and  produce  an  annual  amount  of  $268,500,000  of  these  manufactures. 

This  business  would  not  only  have  secured  a  certain  market  for  our  crop  of  raw  cot- 
ton, but  would  have  created  a  demand  for  agricultural  productions  for  double  the 
amount  of  all  which  we  now  export  to  all  nations. 

Such  would  be  the  comparative  results  of  the  change  of  system  which  the  Senator 
proposes.  They  agree  with  all  the  known  rules  of  practical  economy,  whether  itidi- 
vidual  or  national.  He  who  commits  his  estate  to  the  hands  of  agents,  soon  finds  it  a 
waste;  and  the  community  that  abandons  its  most  active  occupations,  commerce  and 
manufactures,  to  foreign  hands,  will  find  the  exhaustion  equally  rapid  and  certain. 

The  accounts  which  I  have  e.xhibiied  to  show  the  charges  upon  cotton,  are  taken 
from  a  book  published  by  J.  F.  Entz,  as  a  guide  to  shippers  of  cotton.  No  doubt  of 
their  practical  correctness  can  well  be  entertained. 

These  details  show  a  result  even  more  strikingly  disastrous  than  I  had  expected, 
as  to  this  foreigner  system  and  its  individual  and  national  consequences.  Vet  are  the 
effects  in  contormity  with  what  sound  reasoning  might  teach  us  to  expect.  The  prac- 
tical consequences  would  be  even  worse  than  those  here  shown;  because  the  accounts 
are  drawn  upon  the  supposition  that  prices,  even  under  so  great  a  change  of  trade, 
would  remain  as  they  are  ;  while  it  is  almost  certain  that  they  would  alter  much  to 
our  disadvantage. 

The  idea  of  such  a  system  and  such  a  change  of  trade,  is  contrary  not  only  to  all 
sound  argument,  but  all  sober  national  policy. 

The  Senator  wishes  to  reduce  the  price  of  manufactures,  and  to  raise  that  of  cotton. 
To  do  this,  he  would  buy  all  of  England  that  she  may  buy  of  the  South.  He  hopes 
to  succeed  by  yielding  the  control  of  both  markets,  to  a  power  whose  interest  it  is 
■to  reduce  the  price  of  cotton,  and  raise  that  of  goods. 

Could  we,  by  destroying  the  consumption  in  this  country,  add  as  much  to  that 
abroad,  we  should  but  centralize  the  trade  in  a  narrower  market ;  perhaps  that  of  Eng- 
land only,  where  half  the  crop  is  already  worked  up,  and  where  combinations  to  break 
down  the  price  are  already  not  only  frequent,  but  generally  effectual.  I  ask  the  re- 
presentatives of  the  cotton-growing  Stales,  whether  they  themselves  would  not  bail 
(even  without  any  increased  consumption)  the  rise  in  Europe  of  another  market,  capa- 
ble of  taking  as  much  as  we  ourselves  consume — more  than  one-fifth  the  crop?  As 
much  as  that  change  would  advantage  the  price,  in  breaking  up  the  dependance  on  a 
single  great  market,  and  the  frequent  combination  of  great  dealers  there,  so  much  must 
a  domestic  market  profit  us,  with  the  addition  of  its  greater  regularity,  the  lessened 
expense  of  sale,  and  the  retention  in  the  country  of  freight,  commissions,  and  all  that 
is  left  abroad,  in  expenses 

To  the  Senator's  other  supposition,  that  such  a  change  would  reduce  the  currency,  I 
readily  assent.  It  would,  as  he  argues,  drain  us  of  coin,  and  thus  bring  down  prices 
in  general,  and  the  wages  of  labar  in  this  country  in  particular.  We  do  not  disagree 
in  this,  nor  in  the  main,  as  to  the  influence  of  currency  upon  the  rate  of  labor ;  but  we 
differ  as  to  what  a  nation  has  to  desire  in  this  respect.  'I'he  Free  'I'mde  men  wish  to 
see  low  wages ;  I  am  equally  convinced  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of  this  country  to  have 
them  high. 

Let  us,  however,  e,xamine  the  question  of  that  increase  of  the  currency  which  we 
agree  results  from  an  adequate  system  of  protection,  in  its  influence  on  the  price  of 
cotton.  The  growers  of  that  great  staple  (the  Senator  contends)  get  no  more  here, 
but  abroad  less,  for  their  cotton,  in  consequence  of  the  enlargement  of  the  circulation; 
while  for  wha  ever  they  buy,  they  musl  pay  dearer,  in  consequence  of  that  cause. 
Now,  we  know  that  there  has  been  a  very  considerable  inciease  in  the  amount  of  our 
currency  since  the  present  law  took  effect:  what  has  been  the  result  as  to  the  price  of 
cotton?  Among  our  many  productions,  all  of  which  have  been  favorably  affected, 
there  is  not  one  of  importance  that  has  risen  moie  than  cotton.  Indeed,  this  was  to  be 
expected  ;  for  nothing  hail  suffered  more  from  the  crippled  state  of  our  currency.  Last 
year,  about  the  coming  forward  of  the  crop  for  sale,  there  was  a  very  severe  pressure 
in  the  money  affairs  of  New  Orleans  and  Mobile — the  two  main  cotloa  raarkels.     In 


24 

the  former,  specie  payments  had  just  been  resumed  ;  to  sustain  these,  the  banlcs  of 
course  denied  the  usual  facilities  of  business,  and  drafts  on  New  York  fell  to  7  or  8  per 
cent,  discount.  In  Mobile,  there  was  a  still  worse  state  of  things.  I  recollect  sug- 
gesting at  the  time  to  an  Alabama  Senator,  that  one  of  the  main  causes  of  the  depres- 
sion in  the  price  of  their  staple  was  the  weakness  and  confusion  of  their  currency. 
The  largeness  of  the  crop  assisted,  of  course  ;  and  its  shortness  this  year  has  contri- 
buied  to  tlqe  opposite  stale  of  things ;  but  it  is  the  healthier  condition  of  money  affairs, 
the  sufficiency  of  the  circulation,  which  has  enabled  us  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  other 
favorable  circumstances,  and  realize  the  rise  which  has  occurred.  The  peculiar  char- 
acter of  the  article — its  imperishableness,  its  utility,  its  cheapness  in  comparison  with 
other  substances  employed  for  clothing,  its  applicability  to  a  vast  variety  of  purposes- 
secures  a  wide  and  steady  consumption,  and  therefore  invites  investment  in  it,  when- 
ever its  price  declines  much,  or  capital  is  seeking  employment.  Ifs  price  is  therefore 
more  than  that  of  any  other  commodity  connected  with  the  state  of  the  money  market. 

The  facts,  then,  show  distinctly,  that  the  more  substantial  cotton  goods  were  last 
year  cheaper  in  this  country  than  in  England;  that  the  net  product  of  cotton  sold  at 
home  is  more  than  abroad;  that  our  own  is  the  best  market,  to  the  extent  of  its  con- 
sumption ;  that  the  interchange  betwesn  the  planter  and  the  manufacturer  can  be  made 
10  the  greatest  advantage  in  this  country  ;  and  that  the  planter  derives  a  direct  and  im- 
portant benefit,  not  a  loss,  from  the  enlargement  of  the  currency  that  has  ensued  from 
the  existing  law.  I  desire  to  establish  these  positions,  in  order  to  remove  anv  impres- 
sion that  the  system  imposed  burdens  on  the  South,  because  I  wish  that  every  portion 
of  the  country  may  not  only  prosper  under,  but  feel  satisfied  with,  the  existing  legisla- 
tion upon  the  subject. 

So  much  for  the  burdens  attributed  to  the  act  ol  1S42.  But  there  are  renewed  con- 
stitutional objections  to  it ;  and  these,  though  not  without  an  apology  to  the  Senate, 
must  be  succinctly  examined.  The  Senator  from  South  Carolina  alune  contends  that 
It  is  against  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution:  his  friend  from  New  Hampshire  con- 
tents hirnseU  with  arguing  that  it  is  against  the  spirit  of  that  instrument. 

My  apology  for  answering  these  old  objections,  lies  in  the  magnitude  of  the  inter- 
ests at  which  they  strike  The  proposition  is,  that  this  Government  shall  withdraw 
its  protection — and, .ultimately,  even  all  incidental  protection — from  the  entire  industry 
of  its  people.  A  change  is  urged  upon  us  which  vitally  affects  every  laboring  man, 
whether  his  daily  toil  be  that  of  the  farm,  of  the  work-bench,  of  the  anvil,  of  the  loom 
and  throstle,  or  upon  the  deck  of  the  vessel.  These  many  classes,  formed  in  this 
country  of  men  happily  as  intelligent  as  to  their  rights  as  they  are  active  in  their  pur- 
suits, cannot  be  expected  to  remain  indifferent  when  the  laws  and  the  system  under 
which,  from  the  beginning,  their  several  trades  and  occupations  have  grown  up  and 
flourished,  are  proposed  to  be  suddenly  overturned.  They  are  men  who  would  never 
ask  benefits  not  warranted  by  thfe  Constitution,  but  who  will  expect  every  good  for 
themselves  which  it  permits. 

The  constitutional  objection  urged,  considers  the  power  of  Congress  in  the  premises 
as  derived  from  two  provisions :  the  one,  that  which  empowers  it  to  lay  duties  on  im- 
ports ;  the  other,  that  which  authorizes  it  lo  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations. 
These  general  powers  are  given,  they  say,  but  not  without  clear  limitations  : 

1st.  The  power  of  laying  duties  is  given  for  the  purpose  of  revenue  only  ;  and  if 
they  are  imposed  for  any  other  end,  it  must  be  under  the  authority  to  regulate  com- 
merce; but  when  the  latter  power  is  used,  it  must  be  really  to  regulate,  and  not  to  de- 
stroy it  by  prohibitions. 

2d.  That  this  last  is  ihe  operation  and  the  aim  of  the  protective  system,  founded  in 
1816,  enlarged  in  1824,  and  in  1828  carried  so  far  as  to  be  clearly  an  infraction  of  the 
Constitution.  To  the  modification  of  1S:^2,  the  same  objection  was  made  ;  and  against 
it,  one  State  resorted  lo  what  it  regarded  as  the  rightful  remedy  for  such  an  usurpation. 

I  believe  I  have  stated  the  argument  fairly  ;  and  I  examine  it  as  one  correct,  if  the 
positions  taken  are  true,  and  if  the  aim  and  effect  of  protection  was  really  (as  thev 
who  reasoned  thus  succeeded  in  convincing  themselves)  to  destroy,  not  regulate,  com- 
merce. This  was  an  effect  to  be  tested  by  experience  alone.  The  country  iiiade  a  twen- 
ty years'  continuous  trial  of  these  laws:  did  they,  or  did  they  not,  destroy  commerce? 

A  speech  made  here  last  year,  by  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  on  the  same  sub- 
ject, and  with  the  same  purpose  as  now,  shall  answer  this  question.  He  then  said 
that  our  foreign  commerce,  in  addition  to  bearing  the  burden  of  nearly  all  the  ordinary 
expenses  of  the  Government,  bad,  in  the  twenty  years  succeeding  1816,  performed  the 
unexampled  achievement  of  lic|uidatiiig  the  immense  national  debt  of  two  wars  with 
the  most  powerful  people  of  modern  times — a  result  from  our  commerce  which  has 
attracted  the  admiration  of  the  civilized  world. 


25 

Sir,  this  candiil  and  manly  admission  of  the  Senator  annihilates  the  entire  positioa 
on  which  his  argument  rests.  He  himself  selects  the  very  period  when  these  laws 
were  in  operation,  us  that  when  our  commerce  was  at  an  eminence  which  enabled  it  to 
accomplish  these  astonishing  results.  I  will  only  add,  that  the  very  palmiest  days  of 
that  trade  were  precisely  those  in  which  uur  home  industry  received  the  greatesi  aids 
of  high  protection  ;  and  that  the  enormous  debt  of  which  the  Senator  spoke,  so  rapidly 
paid,  was  discharged  before  the  modification  of  WS'S  took  effect. 

That  it  might  Appear  that,  even  upon  the  grounds  taken  by  the  opponents  of  pro- 
tection, their  objections  were  unlounded,  I  have  granted  that  the  power  conferred  by 
ihe  Constitution  was  really  subject  to  the  liraitaiiuns  for  which  they  contend ;  but  I  by 
no  means  think  it  is  so. 

I  think  that  the  authority  given  "  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,"  in- 
cludes the  power  to  prohibit  importations  I  have  but  few  words  to  say  upon  this 
poi'Jt,  because  this  clause  of  the  Constiiulion  was  examined  two  years  ago,  in  this 
body,  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  (iMr.  Choate  )  He  fully  explained 
the  e.ttent  of  the  power  thereby  conferred,  according  to  the  settled  meaning  ot  those 
terms  at  the  time  they  were  inserted.  His  argument  has  not  been  answered,  and  I 
believe  it  to  be  unanswerab  e  ;  su,>ported  by  the  various  authorities  he  introduced,  he 
clearly  established  in  this  Government  the  constitutional  right  both  of  protection  and 
prohibition.  But  as  there  is  a  single  view  which  was  not  then  presented,  and  which  I 
think  conclusive,  I  will  present  it.  1  find  il  in  the  Consiiiuiion  itself;  it  does  not  rest  upoa 
the  argument  of  conslructionisis.  All  agree  that  the  power  in  quesliun  is  to  be  found 
either  under  the  clause  authorizing  Congress  to  lay  duties  on  imports,  or  under  that  to 
regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  &c.  On  thai  grant,  iheii,  what  limit  has  the 
Constitution  placed?  The  instrument  itself  is  its  own  besi  interpretation.  Now,  does 
it  say  that  all  duiies  must  be  laid  solely  for  revenue?  Does  it  declare  that  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce  does  not  include  a  power  lo  prohibit  importations  ?  iJy  no  means ; 
nothing  of  the  sort;  but  there  is  in  it  thai  from  which  the  very  opposite  may  be 
strongly  inferred.  There  is  a  special  clause  relaiing  to  both  these  powers — the  laying 
duties  and  the  prohibiting  importations. 

The  Isl  clause  of  the  9th  section  of  the  1st  article  of  the  Constitution  is  as  follows: 
"  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  Stales  now  exisiing  shail 
think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  (Jongress  prior  lo  the  year  1808; 
but  a  lax  or  duly  may  be  imposed  on  such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for 
each  person." 

Now,  it  is  evident  that  the  framersof  the  Consiilution  thought  such  a  clause  as  this 
necessary  to  limit,  in  a  particular  case,  the  general  power  given  by  the  two  other 
clauses  already  referred  to.  They  certainly  thought  thai  Congress  could,  unless  limited 
by  this  clause,  do  what  it  prohibits  ;  or  else  hey  introduced  a  provision  without  mean- 
ing. Its  introduction  shows,  then,  what  power  was  meant  lo  be  conferred  as  to  all 
other  articles  and  branches  of  trade.  VViiliout  it,  this  pariiculai  one  would  have  been 
subject  to  just  the  same  unlimited  exercise  as  all  ilie  rest  ;  and,  the  limitation  of  time 
once  expired,  it  fell  back  under  the  general  power.  Accordingly,  the  time  once  past,  that 
trade  was  entirely  prohibited — prohibited,  loo,  under  and  by  virtue  ot  the  power  to  re- 
gulate commerce;  and  no  one  has  ever  questioned  the  consiiluiional  right  of  Congress 
to  do  so.  Can  any  man  pretend  that  Congress,  after  1808.  h.id  any  mure  power  over 
that  branch  of  trade  than  all  others?— and  if  it  could  prohibit  that,  it  could  equally 
prohibit  any  other,  when  it  judged  ihe  public  interest  to  require  i' 

The  same  clause  limits  the  taxing  power.  Can  one  doubt  that  this  was  done  to  re- 
strict il  within  a  revenue  rale,  to  prevent  such  exercise  of  it  as  might  abridge  the  im- 
port of  slaves  prior  lo  1808  ? 

Confessedly,  the  interpretation  which  can  be  drawn  from  an  inst-ument  itself,  pre- 
vails over  all  others.  That  which  I  haye  presented  1  think  clear  and  positive  ;  it  does 
not  rest  upon  any  equivocal  interpretation  of  single  words  I  see  not  how,  therefore, 
upon  any  principle  of  law  or  logic,  the  conclusion  is  lu  ht-  resisted. 

Of  course,  I  do  not  mean  that  the  power  for  which  I  coniend  is  to  be  exercised  wan- 
tonly, but  that  there  may  be  exigencies  wliich  require  il  In  general,  I  am  for  a  mod- 
erate exercise  of  all  the  powers  of  this  Government,  and  in  the  use  of  that  fOr  revenue 
particularly,  would  endeavor  to  produce  harmony  throughout  the  country.  It  is  this 
feeling  which  has  urged  me  to  offer  to  the  South  the  facts  and  the  considerations  which 
I  have  had  the  honor  to  submit 

Are,  then,  the  laboring  men  of  this  country  entitled  to  protection,  since  we  have  a 
right  to  give  it? — that  is  the  next  question  Is  il  wise  lo  have  a  system  which  main- 
tains an  ample  circulation,  (which  we  all  agree  thai  this  will,)  and.  as  its  admitted 
consequence,  generous  prices  and  wages  ?    I  see  not  how  there  can  well  be  a  negative 


26 

answer  ;  yet  that  negative  is  urgeil  both  so  violently  and  so  ingeniously,  lliat  one  must 
reply,  least  the  people  be  misled. 

Adroitly  enough,  it  is  managed  to  make  it  appear  that  high  wages  are  no  better  un- 
der this  system  than  low  wages  would  be  under  that  which  is  proposed;  that  if  the 
present  system  gives  a  producer  a  high  price  for  what  he  h'^is  made,  it  forihwith  takes 
it  all  back  in  taxes.  And  yet,  in  the  next  breath,  they  tell  you  that,  under  their  system, 
a  larger  sum  is  to  be  drawn  from  consumers  than  under  this  !  Under  the  Free  Trade 
plan,  there  is  a  son  of  magic  in  the  process,  by  which  a  man  may  pay  ten  dollars  to 
the  Government  where  he  now  pays  but  five,  and  yet  be  lighter  taxed. 

Like  this,  is  their  reasoning  to  show  the  necessity  of  altering  the  present  law:  du- 
ring the  earlier  part  of  the  session,  it  must  be  altered  and  reduced,  in  order  to  get  rev- 
enue enough  to  carry  on  the  Government — so  then  thoucht  the  Senator  from  Alabama, 
(Mr.  KiXG  ;)  bat  since  the  revenue  has  proved  adequate,  the  Senator  from  New  Hamp- 
shire (Mr.  Woodbury)  expresses  the  liveliest  apprehensions  that,  if  this  continues,  we 
shall  have  a  plethora  of  the  Treasury.  He  fears,  also,  a  revulsion — a  return  to  the 
heart-rending  scenes  through  which  we  have  passed  not  long  ago ;  and  he  urges  us 
to  reduce  the  duties,  in  order  to  avert  them.  In  short,  you  are  to  reduce  the  duties  to 
increase  the  revenue;  and  you  are  to  reduce  them  to  diminish  it.  If  you  have  not  in- 
come enough  !  then  down  with  the  duties  I  If  an  excess  :  down  with  ihera  again  ' 
They  are  alarmed,  at  first,  with  the  certainty  that  there  will  be  no  importations;  but, 
presently,  when  your  law  is  found  not  to  have  kept  them  out,  they  are  equally  alarmed 
at  their  excess ;  and  invite  you  to  a  system  whicli  ihey  say  will  almost  double  them  ! 

Somewhat  strange  is  all  this;  but  a  thing  still  more  extraordinary  is  behind.  They 
urge  us  to  change  the  rates,  in  order  to  keep  the  Tariff'  steady  I  "  Permanence  !"  cry 
the  advocates  of  change  :  "Permanence  is  everv  thing  in  legislation  ;  therefore  alter 
the  laws  every  session  !"  Sir,  it  has  been  gravely  argued  by  nearly  all  the  opponents 
of  the  law  of  1842,  that  we  can  never  expect  anything  like  s;ability  under  a  high  Ta- 
riff; the  imports,  they -ay,  will  fluctuate,  or  (as  others  style  it)  "flounder;''  the  re- 
venue will  fluctuate;  the  currency  will  so  augment  that  men  will  run  wild  with  spec- 
ulation; wages  will  rise— the  laborer  grow  extravagant.  All  sorts  of  ill,  they  say, 
attend  a  state  of  prosperity ;  come  down,  therefore,  to  a  level  from  which  you  cannot 
fall  ;  have  Free  Trade,  or  an  approach  to  it,  and  then  you  need  have  none  of  these  vi- 
brations into  a  dangerous  state  of  success;  then,  things  will  be  kept  steady.  For  every 
variety  of  condition— tor  all  that  may  by  and  by  go  amiss,  through  too  much  thriving; 
there  is  one  universal  remedy  :  Reduce  the  Duties — take  away  Protection — cut  down 
Wages;  then,  you  are  sure  to  have  a  steady  state  of  things — a  calm,  uninterrupted 
dependance  on  foreigners  and  foreign  governments — the  great  disideratum  of  commerce 
and  policy. 

I  have  endeavored,  however,  to  show  that  the  placing  ourselves  in  this  dependance 
on  others,  is  by  no  means  certain  to  nisure  us  just  and  liberal  treatment ;  that,  so  sel- 
fish are  nations,  little  is  to  be  expected  of  the  best  of  them;  and  that  our  true  policy 
is  to  look  to  and  encourage  the  development  of  our  own  resources,  to  increase  as  far  as 
practicable  the  market  for  our  own  productions  at  home,  by  employing  American  la- 
bor in  furnishing  the  supplies  for  our  own  people.  These  objects,  the  system  of  prr>- 
tection  now  enjoyed  secures  without  injury  to  any  section.  We  are  just  beginning  to 
feel  its  good  effects.  The  coin  has  increased,  and  the  circulation  is  adequate  to  the 
business  of  the  country  ;  the  exactions  of  the  money-lender,  under  which,  but  a  little 
while  since,  business  of  every  sort  were  said  to  groan,  have  ceased  ;  interest  has  fallen 
to  but  little  more  by  the  year  than  was  lately  its  rate  by  the  month. 

This,  let  it  be  remarked,  removes  one  of  the  Senator's  objections  to  the  introductioiv 
of  the  business  of  manufacturing  in  this  country — that  capital  was  too  scarce  and  inte- 
rest loo  high.  It  overthrows,  too,  one  oi  his  predictions  of  a  year  since — that  our  me- 
tallic currency  would  increase  at  the  expense  of  England  and  to  the  injury  of  prices 
there  for  the  Southern  staple.  It  turns  out  that  though  we  have,  under  this  law,  added 
largely  to  our  coin,  England  has  still  more  largely  increased  hers,  for  purposes  of  busi- 
ness. In  truth,  I  doubt  not  that  the  same  general  cause— a  returning  confidence  in  the 
wisdom  of  legislation  as  to  trade  and  national  industry— has  biought  about  or  greatly 
aided  these  effects  in  both  countries.  1  could  perceive  but  little  improvement  in  affairs 
among  us  until  August  last,  when  an  election  in  the  gallant  State  of  Tennessee  secured 
the  return  to  this  body  of  two  Whig  members,  and  thus  placed  this  law  in  the  hands 
of  its  friends,  not  its  enemie:-.  This  gave  confidence  that  no  rash  change  would  be 
made  which  would  injure  our  national  industry;  and  from  that  moment  business  im- 
proved. In  England,  like  events  have  produced  a  like  confidence:  elections  have  oc- 
curred which  secure  the  present  Conservative  Ministry,  upset  Radicalism,  and  exclude 
a  Free  Trade  Administration,    Upon  this,  as  among  ourselves,  a  feeling  of  security  has 


27 

at  once  sprung  up;  money  has  returned  from  ils  hiding-places  into  the  channels  of  bu- 
siness, and  exhibits  itself  in  the  greatly  enlarged  returns  of  specie  in  all  the  moneyed 
institutions. 

I  come  now  to  consider  whether  the  industrial  pursuits  of  our  country  merit  the  con- 
tinuance of  this  system.  By  these,  I  mean  more  especially  those  arts  and  employments 
which  more  or  less  depend  for  their  subsistence  among  us  on  legislative  encouragement. 
The  claims  of  the  agriculturists  are  admitted,  although  iheir  business,  too,  is  proposed 
to  be  destroyed,  or  at  least  such  branches  as  directly  depend  upon  this  systeni  of  pro- 
tection. It  really  embraces,  direcily  or  indirectly,  nearly  all  pursuits  alike,  mechanical 
and  agricultural ;  but,  among  the  latter,  more  especially  affecls  the  growers  of  wool, 
of  hemp,  and  of  sugar— of  themselves,  not  very  unimportant  classes  of  producers.  But 
as  the  principal  objection  is  to  ihe  protection  of  the  mechanical  trades  and  manufactures, 
I  shall  confine  myself  chiefly  to  their  claims  upon  this  Government  lor  continued  pro- 
tection under  ibis  law. 

The  Senator  fr.rn  Missouri  says  he  was  deceived  or  "  humbugged  "  when  he  voted 
for  this  systeni :  he  now  thinks  it  gives  enormous  profits.  I  have  already  explained 
how  he  infers  this,  lie  instances  (he  fact  that  a  colleciive  capital  vf  two  millions  en- 
gaged in  the  leather  manuficlures  of  Massachusetts  produces  annually  six  millions 
worth  ot  ai tides.  'I  his  is  his  only  evidence  of  great  profits.  The  fact  might  exist, 
and  yet  the  entire  product  be  sold  at  a  loss. 

The  Senator  from  South  Carolina  argues  upon  a  larger  view,  and  principles  more 
general— the  enlargement  of  the  currency  and  consequent  increase  of  the  wages  of  la- 
bor and  of  prices  under  a  system  of  protection.  As  to  wages,  I  agree  wilb  him,  but  con- 
sider the  effect  a  good,  not  an  ill  ;  and  this  is  the  main  point  of  difl'erence  between  us. 

We  concur  in  ascribing  the  permanent  advance  of  prices,  where  it  exists,  to  the  re- 
Jative  amount  of  currency  rather  than  to  the  influence  of  supply  and  demand.  These 
iast  govern  the  temporary  fluctuations  in  prices;  but  the  standard  kept  in  view  when 
we  talk  of  high  prices  and  low  prices  is  the  cost  of  production.  We  call  prices  high  or 
iow,  as  they  range  above  or  below  that. 

Looking  back  to  the  times  when  yet  the  mines  of  this  continent  had  not  been  open- 
ed, we  find  the  price  in  lingland  of  a  fattened  ox,  30  shillings,  or  about  $7.  The  ani- 
mal would  now  be  worth  from  S40  to  $.50  Now,  as  the  English  markets  cannot  be 
supposed  less  well  supplied  with  beef,  in  proportion  to  the  demand,  than  three  centu- 
ries ago,  the  rise  of  price  has  come  about  i^roni  no  variation  of  supply  or  demand ;  and 
since  during  the  time  in  question,  there  has  been  an  increase  of  the  coin  or  currency 
about  proportionate  to  the  advanced  price  of  the  ox,  it  is  to  that  cause  we  shall  trace  it. 
It  is  the  relative  prices  of  the  various  articles  produced  for  the  subsistence  or  comfort  of 
man,  and  the  influence  which  systematic  legislation  can  exert  upon  them,  which  should 
engage  the  attention  of  statesmen,  and  will,  I  trust,  direct  the  attention  of  the  Senate 
to  the  claims  of  our  artisans  upon  the  protection  of  this  Government.  Now,  while  we 
have  seen  ihe  vast  increase  in  the  price  of  an  ox  which  has  arisen  from  the  augmenta- 
tion of  the  precious  metals,  and  while  it  may  be  seen  that  a  like  advance  has  marked 
the  price  of  agricultural  products  generally,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  cost  of  cloth- 
ing and  of  nearly  every  production  of  the  arts  has  declined.  I  am  not  one  who  thinks 
that  the  immediate  fall  in  prices,  which  have  occurred  upon  the  passage  of  bills  raising 
the  rates  of  duly,  is  the  effect  of  the  increased  duty.  It  is  caused  by  an  excessive  im- 
port in  anticipation  of  the  time  when  the  laws  take  effect.  1  have,  therefore,  always 
regarded  it  as  injurious,  both  to  American  importers  and  producers,  to  allow  three  or 
six  months  from  the  passage  of  an  act  before  it  takes  effect — a  time  seized  to  overstock 
the  country  with  imports.  This  course  of  legislation  has  injured  all  classes.  If  the 
laws  had  taken  effect  upon  their  passage,  they  would  have  sustained  prices  until  redu- 
ced by  the  ordinary  causes — ^reduced  cost  of  production,  competition,  ice.  This  re- 
sult follows  the  certainty  of  the  market,  which  invites  capital  into  the  production  of  the 
protected  article,  and  stimulates  exertions,  until  the  whole  energy  is  engaged  to  pro- 
duce cheap  and  perfect  product.  The  cost  of  production  is  thus  reduced,  not  only  with- 
out depressing,  but  even  when  the  wages  of  labor  are  increased.  These  facts  are 
within  my  own  knowledge,  fjunded  upon  twenty  years'  experience.  Diinini.-hed  cost 
is  the  result  of  improved  processes,  machinery,  and  the  division  of  labor,  of  which  the 
effects  are  visible  in  all  the  details  of  the  mechanical  trades,  under  a  system  of  protec- 
tion. But  it  is  to  the  aggregate  effects,  not  the  details — the  vast  benefits  which  im- 
proved art  has  conferred  upon  society,  that  I  would  refer  the  Senators.  I  need  not  go 
back  to  the  introduction  or  invention  of  the  mariner's  compass,  of  fire  arms,  and  the 
printing  pre.-s — things  which,  confessedly,  revolutionized  society  not  less  as  to  peace 
than  war,  and  not  less  in  secular  pursuits  than  in  religion  itself — destroying  the  feudal 
system,  giving  new  impulses  to  civilization,  a  id  new  life  to  the  doctrines  of  Cbnstiau- 


28 

ity.  I  may  leave  lliese  earlier  triumphs  of  the  mechanic,  and  glance  only  at  the  extent 
to  which  the  improvements  of  the  last  half  century  have  ministered  to  the  necessities 
and  comforts  of  man.  During  this  period,  there  has  been  no  sensible  addition  to  the 
metallic  currency  of  the  world,  and  the  price  of  food  has  therefore  varied  but  little. 
But  how  is  it  with  the  productions  of  meciianic  pursuits — clothing,  the  implements  oi 
agriculture  ?— and  how  with  the  general  improvements  in  transportation  and  travel? 
Refer  again,  sir,  to  the  work  of  Mr.  Tench  Coxe.  In  1810,  he  sets  down  the  prices 
(wholesale)  of  cotton  goods,  such  as  are  now  6  or  7  cents  the  yard,  at  40  or  50  ;  yet  10 
cents  was  then  the  price  of  cotton  as  now.  Meantime,  much  more  to  the  hand  is  now 
made  of  that  staple  than  was  then.  In  1810,  7  or  SOO  pounds  to  the  hand  was  a  fair 
yield  ;  now,  four  or  five  times  as  much  is  often  produced.  Methods  have  improved, 
and  the  production  of  cotton  has  been  every  way  cheapened.  Vet,  witli  all  this — get- 
ting five  or  six  times  as  many  yards  of  cloth  for  a  hundred  pounds  of  cotton  as  in  1810, 
and  raising  from  three  to  five  times  more  cotton  to  the  hand,  so  that  a  day's  work 
brings  him  at  least  twenty  times  as  many  goods  as  in  1810 — the  planter  complains. 

In  every  product  of  the  mechanic  trades,  there  is  also  a  great  reduction  of  cost,  so  as 
to  bring  every  needful  enjoyment  within  the  means  of  the  mass  of  men.  The  poorest 
share  in  the  benefit  as  to  the  employment  and  the  comforts  ihey  can  now  procure; 
while  many  that  could  never  otherwise  have  been  disengaged  Irom  labor  find  the  means 
of  education,  which,  directed  to  mechanical  science,  has  marked  the  spirit  of  the  age, 
and  others  become  the  ornaments  of  professions,  and,  as  members  of  this  body,  delight 
and  instruct  us  with  their  e  oquence  and  ability. 

Sir,  if  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  public  benefactor  who  makes  Itvn  blades  of  grass 
grow  where  but  one  grew  before,  surely  something  is  due  to  the  mechanic  who  has 
thus,  in  a  much  greater  ratio,  added  to  the  supply  of  human  necessities  and  the  means 
of  human  comfort.  Though  he  be  of  a  modest  class  ol  men,  he  may  well,  on  these 
grounds,  claim  the  continued  protection  of  this  Government. 

The  Senator  from  Missouri  has  found  one  argument  unurged  by  the  other  oppo- 
nents of  protection.  He  says  that  a  league  to  keep  it  up  has  been  formed  between 
the  millionary  men  and  the  politicians  ;  that  the  great  champion  of  protection 
is  their  common  leader,  Sec.  This  is  the  first  distinct  declaration  in  this  body,  from 
any  quarter,  that  the  destruction  of  the  protective  system  is  to  be  a  party  and  a  Presi- 
dential question.  External  indications  there  were  of  this  plan  of  operations — as  in  a 
letter  dated  more  than  a  year  since,  in  which  a  distinguished  citizen  of  New  York  an- 
nounces his  hostility  to  this  Tariff,  "  both  as  to  its  principles  and  its  details ;"  and, 
again,  in  a  more  recent  letter  from  a  distinguished  citizen  of  South  Carolina,  declaring 
that  he  will  support  no  man  who  does  not,  by  himself  or  his  friends,  sustain  a  certain 
ruleofihe  other  House  and  the  principles  of  Free  Trade.  There  has  been  indications  of 
late  of  a  desire  to  conciliate  this  support,  but  I  confess  I  thought  the  Senator  from  Mis- 
souri would  have  been  one  of  the  last  men  to  do  it ;  and  I  was,  therefore,  surprised  when 
J  heard  him  talk  of"  the  highest  Free  trade  authorities,"  and  give  in  his  adhesion. 

Although  there  be,  on  that  side,  this  visible  connection  of  this  question  with  mere 
parly  politics,  I  have  seen  no  like  indication  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  protection. — 
Among  the  mechanics  and  manufacturers,  there  has  certainly  been  no  movement  which 
warrants  the  Senator's  charge.  They  have  held  no  convention  for  political  purposes  ; 
they  have  never  nominated  candidates  for  the  Presidency.  I  freely  admit  that  the  em- 
inent individual  referred  to  by  the  Senator  will  be  the  choice  of  the  friends  of  protec- 
tion, and  is  now  their  candidate,  but  not  by  any  concerted  efforts  or  action  of  manufac- 
turers. Suppose,  sir,  that  distinguished  citizen  had  never  said  one  word  in  favor  of 
protecting  the  national  industry  ?  Is  there  not  enough  besides,  in  his  long  life  of  devo- 
tion to  his  country,  to  entitle  him  to  the  gratitude  of  every  American  freeman  ?  Sir, 
the  response  of  every  heart  that  beats  with  a  warmer  throb  at  the  renown  or  the  hap- 
piness of  this  nation,  will  be  "  Yes  !"  and  I  may  say  to  the  Senator  from  Missouri  that 
when,  with  a  menacing  attitude,  he  warns  the  mechanics  to  beware  of  a  war  like  that 
with  the  late  U.  S.  Bank,  his  course  and  his  threats  may  astonish,  but  will  not  dismay 
them  :  he  will  not  make  them  torget  the  magnitude  of  a  nation's  industry,  nor  the  man 
who  has  been  their  ablest  and  most  constant  friend  and  advocate. 

But  the  Senator  says  he  is  now  opposed  to  protection,  because  millionary  men  are 
engaged  in  the  business  of  manufacturing,  and  unite  with  politicians  to  support  a  par- 
ticular candidate.  How  is  this?  A  few  days  since,  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina 
insisted  that  we  could  not  carry  on  manufactures  in  this  country,  because  there  was  not 
sufficient  capital  among  us  ;  now,  all  of  a  sudden,  those  engaged  in  the  business  have 
too  much  capital.  So  here  we  have  it  again  as  on  the  question  of  revenue :  you  are  lo 
reduce  the  Tariff  to  get  more — you  are  to  reduce  it  to  get  less.  Banish  manufactures, 
you  haven't  capital  enough       .i  banish  them  again,  because  you  have  too  much. 


29 

I  most  respectfully  submit  that  it  is  bad  policy,  if  not  worse,  in  this  country  and  in 
this  body,  to  denounce  uien  for  having  a  large  properly — still  more,  to  overlurn  pursuits 
because  some  of  those  engaged  in  them  are  wealthy-  We  hear  of  them  as  millionary 
men,  in  one  breath,  and  as  men  living  upon  the  bounty  of  Government  in  the  next.  In 
my  judgment,  it  is  unwise,  as  well  as  wrong,  to  speak  of  any  of  the  important  pursuits 
of  life  in  a  way  to  make  them  odious  or  disreputable.  These  are  laborious  and  useful 
occupations,  in  whjch  all  llie  care  of  Government  can  at  best  but  second  the  qualities 
and  the  exeriions  that  entiile  a  man  lo  success.  Is  he  to  be  blackened,  is  his  whole 
class  to  be  enrolled  for  public  antipathy,  because  his  honest  and  skillful  toil  has  been 
rewarded  ?  Those  engaged  among  us  in  these  employments  have  never  felt,  hereto- 
fore, that  they  were  living  upon  the  earnings  of  others — that  tliey  were  pensioners  up- 
on the  bounty  of  Government.  This  is  a  new  doctrine,  and  one  which  deprives  labor 
of  its  most  efficient  encouragement — the  sell-sustaining  conviction,  that,  by  its  own  ex- 
ertions, steadily  applied,  it  may  win  support,  and  eventually  achieve  couipetenee  and 
respectability,  unaided  by  extorted  bounties  or  contributions  from  any  quarter. 

1  have  the  same  views  of  the  denunciation  of  wealth  otherwise  acquired.  Where, 
it  this  is  to  be  done,  are  the  inducements  to  exertion  ?  Will  men  toil  when  the  fruit 
of  success  is  to  be  stigmatised,  and  to  have  the  very  business  in  which  they  have  thri- 
ven placed  under  the  ban  ol  society  ?  This  is  making  war  upon  a  chief  aim  of  society 
itselt— the  accumulation  and  enjoyment  of  properly.  Sir,  the  statesman  who  adopts 
this  course  is  in  a  way  to  destroy  all  the  hopes  and  all  the  e.\ertions  of  life,  to  check  all 
honorable  activity,  to  blast  all  ilie  expectations  of  labor,  to  cut  ofl'  all  the  enjoyments 
the  attainment  of  which  aniniates  it.  In  the  nature  ot  the  mechanical  or  the  manufac- 
turing business,  there  is  nothing  to  justify  this  obloquy  which  does  not  apply  lo  all  other 
pursuits.  In  all,  the  object  is  to  acquire  property.  None  has  a  more  direct  effect  to 
distribute  the  gains  than  those  which  our  policy  protects;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  be  pursuits  which,  more  than  all  others,  tend  to  aggregate  profits  in  the  hands 
of  a  few,  they  are  precisely  those  for  the  sake  of  which  the  destruction  of  the  present 
system  is  now  proposed — namely,  foreign  commerce  and  planting  on  a  baronial  scale. 
Are  these  noble  and  national  pursuits  to  be  denounced  and  destroyed,  because  equal 
fortunes  have  not  been  made  in  any  other  ?  This  would  be  almost  as  unreasonable  as 
the  present  attempt  of  the  peculiar  friends  of  those  interests  to  deny  to  others  the  same 
protection  which  they  have  enjoyed  Irom  the  earliest  action  of  this  Government.  Sir, 
although  this  may  be  popular  in  some  quarters,  and  some  men  may  deuounce  with  one 
breath  the  unfortunate  men  of  business,  and  in  the  next  the  successful  ones,  the  course 
has  been  pursued  too  long  to  succeed — men  begin  lo  understand  their  object — and  when 
this  question  is  presented  lo  the  people  as  we  are  told  it  will  be,  and  they  are  asked  to 
destroy  iheir  present  law  to  injure  a  successful  neighbor,  they  will  inquire,  "  What  are 
we  to  gain,  or  what  is  to  be  gained  by  the  proposed  change  in  our  policy  ?  If  these 
manufacturers,  now  consuming  annuallv,  (according  to  the  census  and  Mr.  Tucker,)  in 
raw  materials  alone,  $164,000,000,  wi'th  a  further  amount  in  food  of  $140,000,000, 
making  in  all  above  $300,000,000  of  our  own  agricultural  products,  are  broken  up,  how 
is  this  new  policy  to  procure  for  our  farmers  a  market  to  ihat  extent  ?  Nay,  how  for 
any  considerable  part  of  it  ?  And  how,  still  worse,  when  nearly  the  whole  manufac- 
turing population  is  at  once  forced  to  become  agricultural  producers  ?  All  we  can  now 
dispose  of  abroad  amounts  (excluding  cotton)  to  but  some  forty  or  fifty  millions  a  vear. 
Can  any  one  suppose  that  we  are,  in  countries  already  supplied  with  such  produce,  to 
find  a  market  for  that  amount  many  times  multiplied  ?" 

The  advantage  of  supplying  the  manufacturers  is  obvious.  This  benefit  is  acknow- 
ledged by  all,  and  by  no  one  more  than  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  South  Carolina. 
He  says,  "  the  manufacturer  deals  with  the  farmer,  because  he  takes  from  him  what 
he  has  to  sell ;  and,  on  the  same  principle,  the  farmer  deals  with  the  manufacturer  :  so 
far,  ills  true,  there  is  a  mutual  benefit."  Into  this  single  sentence  is  compressed  the 
philosophy  of  the  protective  system.  "  Mutual  benefit,"  derived  from  "natural  mar- 
ket," the  extent  of  which  is  limited  only  by  the  distance  and  the  cost  of  transportation. 
Yet  the  honorable  Senator  contends  that  "  Manchester,  Leeds,  Birmingham,  and  the 
other  manufacturing  towns  of  Europe,  are  the  natural  markets  of  the  South  !"  Sir,  our 
farmers  already  feel  too  keenly  the  want  of  a  sufficient  market,  even  with  the  aid  of 
the  vast  amount  consumed  by  their  fellow-citizens,  the  artisans,  ta  venture  upon  any 
such  self-destructive  experiment ;  and  I  have,  therefore,  no  fear  of  seeing  them  make  it. 

Mr.  President :  The  remarks  I  have  addressed  lo  the  Senate  are  intended  to  defend 
the  system  of  protection — to  show  the  impolicy  of  an  opposite  or  low  duty  one.  To 
the  ends  of  revenue,  for  which  the  act  of  1842  was  passed,  I  believe  it  well-adapted. 
I  do  not  pretend  that  it  is  perfect,  and  therefore  never  lo  be  changed  ;  but  I  think  it  de- 
sirable to  give  it  a  fair  trial,  tha*  've  ;..ay  be  sure,  if  we  alter,  to  improve  it. 


30 

This,  at  least,  can  be  truly  said  of  it — that,  so  far,  it  works  well.  Can  any  one  say 
ilhal  the  substitute  proposer!  by  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  will  operate  equally 
well  1  In  thai  substitute,  I  see  nothing  but  its  delusive  title  to  recommend  it — a  title 
on  which,  much  more  than  on  any  provision  which  it  contains,  its  advocates  depend. 
At  every  renewal  of  the  discussion  here,  the  Free  Trade  papers  mark  it,  with  capitals, 
-"  The  Compromise  Ai  t."  True,  its  title  is,  "A  bill  to  revive  the  Compromise  Act;" 
but  there  is  not  a  provision  in  it  which  is  in  conformity  with  the  principle  or  spirit  of 
thai  law  —not  a  provision  but  is  hostile  to  bolh.  This  title  is  calculated,  if  not  intend- 
ed, to  create  in  the  minds  of  those  favorable  to  protection,  a  belief  that  the  Compromise 
Act  of  1S3-i  was  like  this  in  lis  provisions,  and  of  course  injurious,  if  not  fatal,  to  the 
national  industry.  The  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  in  his  zeal  to  establish  Free 
Trade,  said  that  the  principle  of  proteclion  was  abandoned  in  that  law.  Now,  whether 
all  this  is  for  iho  purpose  of  making  Iriends  for  the  present  bill,  or  enemies  for  him  who 
':hietly  brought  about  that  of  1833,  may  be  doublful.  Nevertheless,  thai  act  provided 
that  the  duties  to  be  laid  should  be  such  as  would  raise  irorn  them  alone  ati  amount  ot 
revenue  equal  to  the  entire  support  of  the  Government,  economically  administered  ;  and 
further,  that  a  mode  of  assessing  these  duties  should  be  employed  which  is  quite  as  se- 
cure, for  purposes  of  protection,  as  specific  rates.  The  bill  of  the  Senator  from  South 
Carolina  contains  neiiherjjf  these  great  features  of  the  Compromise  Act.  Now,  he 
spoke  of  the  act  of  1842  as  having  "fraud  and  falsehood  stamped  upon  its  face:"  1  ap- 
peal to  him,  then,  to  compare  his  own  with  that  of  which  it  is  made  to  lake  the  name, 
and  say  to  which  his  epithets  best  apply. 

All  know  there  were  friends  of  domestic  industry  who  regarded  the  provisions  of  the 
law  of  1&33  as  inadequate  to  a  system  of  just  proteclion  ;  but  I  was  not  among  such. 
Some  of  them  have,  in  this  debate,  pronounced  it  particularly  defective  for  that  acd 
for  revenue  purposes,  because  it  did  not  provide  for  Jiscrimincition  in  levying  duties.  I 
could  never  discover  what  more  useful  dhcrimination  for  protection  could  be  desired 
than  that  contemplated  by  the  Compromise  Act.  It  proposed  to  raise  the  entire  reve- 
nue by  duties  on  articles  which  would  come  in  competition  with  products  of  our  own, 
and  to  allow  others,  which  did  not,  to  be  imponed//ve,  when  the  state  of  the  Treasu- 
ry permitted.  What  broader  discrimination  is  needed,  or  what  more  for  protection  ! 
[jThe  objection  as  to  the  uniformity  of  rates  was  fully  answered,  at  (he  passage  of  the 
bill,  by  the  declaration  then  made  and  acceded  to,  that  if  any  interest  would  be  likely 
JO  suffer  under  the  general  rate  of  duty,  an  exception  would  be  made  in  its  favor.  The 
law,  therefore,  thus  qualified,  would  have  afforded  equal  protection  to  all  American  la- 
bour. I:  contained  the  only  just  principle  of  discrimination — one  which  favored  all 
interests  according  as  they  had  claims. 

In  the  examination  of  this  subject  by  the  Cotnmittee  on  Manufactures  of  this  body, 
but  two  branches  of  industry  seemed  to  claim  higher  rates  of  duty  than  were  indispen- 
soble  for  revenue.  These  were  the  producers  of  sugar  and  the  makers  of  certain  kinds 
of  iron.  The  committee  agreed  that  they  required  higher  rates,  and  so  provided.  All 
other  interests  seemed  content  with  a  revenue  rate  of  about  25  per  cent,  upon  the  ac- 
tual value  in  this  country — that  value  asceriaiued  and  fixed  in  the  law,  so  as  to  insure 
its  collection.  Foreign  agents  objected  to  the  plan  as  insupportable  :  these  would,  no 
doubt,  have  preferred  much  higher  rates,  if,  in  some  form,  offering  a  reasonable  chance 
of  evading  them.  Let  them  fix  the  value  on  which  the  duty  is  to  be  assessed,  and  no 
objection  will  they  make  to  rates  as  high  as  those  proposed  by  the  Senator  from  Mis- 
souri— llroni  yo  to  33  per  cent.  We  have  had  such  a  system  :  under  it  frauds  were 
proverbial,  and  custom-house  oaths  a  by-word;  yet  here  we  are  gravely  urged  to  re- 
turn to  it.  I  should  certainly  prefer  aO  per  cent,  upon  an  actual  value  in  this  country, 
which  can  be  fairly  collected,  to  40  per  cent,  on  the  foreign  invoice,  though  you  should 
provide  all  that  can  be  enacted  to  secure  it. 

It  is  known  to  all  who  were  members  of  this  body  in  1842,  that  the  friends  of  pro- 
tection here  were  in  favor  of  a  plan  conforming  to  the  provisions  of  the  Compromise 
Act — one  which  would  make  the  duties  uniform  in  every  port  in  the  country.  But, 
upon  a  discussion  of  the  question,  it  was  declared  here,  by  the  leading  advocate  of  Free 
Trade,  that  one  of  its  most  important  provisions  was  unconstitutional,  and  never  in- 
tended to  be  carried  into  effect !  After  that,  who  would  have  expected  to  see  present- 
ed here,  by  a  Free  Trade  man,  a  bill  to  revive  the  law  thus  denounced  as  unconstitu- 
tional by  the  very  leader  in  that  school. 

One  word  to  those  friends  of  protection  who  urge  the  necessity  oi  discrimiiialing  for 
revenue.  Discrimination  for  this  alone  would  practically  destroy  most  of  the  incidental 
protection  given  in  a  revenue  law;  because  if  a  duty  of  25  per  cent,  (or  $1  each)  upon 
bats,  gives  our  hatters  the  market,  it  destroys  the  revenue  from  hats  :  therefore,  we 
must  reduce  the  duty  until  foreign  hats  take  the  place  of  American,  in  order  that  there 


31 

may  be  a  revenue  from  them.  If  revenue  is  the  sole  object,  you  must  reduce  the  rates- 
until  the  foreign  article  can  be  introduced,  or  else  revenue  fails.  It  is  under  this  favo- 
rite word  of  discrimination,  used  indiscriminately  for  and  against  protection,  that  the 
wants  of  the  Treasury  are  made  the  pretext  for  destroying  the  mechanic. 

The  reasons  which  induced  me  to  prefer  a  law  framed  in  real  accordance  with  the 
Compromise  Act  to  the  law  passed  in  1842,  have  lost  none  of  their  force  since.  1 
thought  that  plan  would  deprive  the  eKcmies  of  protection  of  all  pretext  for  saying  thai 
duties  were  extravagantly  high  according  to  the  value  of  articles  actually  imported.— 
This,  they  now  say,  under  a  law  imposing  specific  duties,  although  no  higher  in  fact 
nor  affording  more  protection  than  would  a  uniform  rate  of  duty  suflicient  for  revenue. 
This  I  may  illusirate  by  an  instance  from  the  speeches  of  each  of  the  Senators  (Messrs. 
WooDBUiiv  and  McDuffif.)  who  urge  the  most  unabated  Free  Trade  doctrines. 

The  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  (Mr.  Woodeukv,)  in  support  of  his  assertion 
that  the  law  of  IS-fi  imposes  duties  greatly  above  the  revenue  standard,  (which  he 
declares  fiom  ."SO  to  33  per  cent.,)  has  annexed  to  his  speech  several  tables.  One  of 
these  exhibits  the  rales  of  duties  on  the  foreign  cost  of  articles,  as  shown_on  the  books 
of  the  Treasury  Department.  In  this,  the  duty  on  molasses  is  rated  at  51  per  cent. — 
In  other  tables,  he  gives  the  present  price  in  New  York  as  froin  26  to  30  cents  the  gal- 
lon, and  the  duty  at  5'  cents.  The  average  value  in  New  York  is  2S  cents,  the  duty 
5'  cents  per  gallon,  which  is  IS^'  per  cent.,  or  less  than  two-thirds  the  Senator's  reve- 
nue rate.  Yet,  by  the  bill  now  proposed  in  the  other  House  by  the  anti-protectionists, 
on  this  article,  ihe  duly  is  proposed  to  be  reduced  one  third,  or  to  12^  per  cent,  on  the 
present  market  price  in  New  York 

In  every  argument  made  here  against  protection,  the  duties  on  another  class  of  goods 
(rivals  to  our  own  productions)  have  been  denounced:  I  mean  cotton  goods.  Upon 
these,  during  the  last  year,  the  duty,  according  to  the  Senaior's  tables,  has  averaged  43 
per  cent,  upon  the  foreign  cost.  The  duties  on  these  operate  like  that  on  molasses — 
specifically  on  the  quantity  ;  and  the  extremely  depressed  value  of  such  goods  every 
where  last  year  has  served  to  make  xhesejixfd  duties  at  least  20  percent,  more  on  the 
cost  than  they  would  ordinarily  average.  This  slate  of  the  prices  of  these  goods  has 
not  only  furnished  the  means  for  a  comparison  for  this  reason  not  fair,  but  it  has  beeu 
seized  by  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina  for  a  still  more  disadvantageous  comparison — 
of  what  would  have  been  the  rates  upon  goods  which  were  not  imported,  and  which 
could  not  be,  even  if  there  had  been  no  duty,  since  the  Senator's  own  tables  prove  that 
such,  of  .'Vmeriean  fabric,  were  sold  as  low  here  as  in  England,  or  lower.  1  allude  to 
prints  or  calicoes,  which  he  has  several  times  noticed  as  illustrating  "  the  enormities 
of  this  law.''  He  says,  "  .\.  large  proportion  of  the  prints  and  calicoes  consumed  in  the 
United  States,  and  of  which  every  female  of  the  middle  and  poorer  clasess  is  a  consu- 
mer, cost  in  Manchester  from  6  to  12  cents  a  yard  ;  but  they  are  charged  with  duties  of 
irom  75  to  150  per  cent,  by  the  ingenious  contrivance  of  artificial  and  false  valuations." 
•  Of  goods  like  these  here  referred  to,  there  are  annually  made  and  consumed  in  the 
United  States  at  least  fifteen  yards  for  every  female  in  the  country,  including  children — - 
quite  an  ample  supply,  one  would  say  ;  and  the  prices  of  them  quoted  in  the  Senator's 
own  tables,  are  as  lov.'  as  he  says  they  are  in  Manchester.  Now,  with  a  full  supply 
of  our  own  make,  at  prices  as  low  as  abroad,  it  is  not  very  easy  to  conceive  that  "a 
large  proportion  "  of  the  goods  consumed  would  be  imported  and  pay  such  duties.  I 
very  much  doubt  whether  there  has  been  imported,  since  the  law  passed,  a  case  of 
goods  of  that  grade. 

It  is  well  to  point  to  such  facts,  if  for  nothing  else,  as  instances  of  the  errors  into 
which  Free  Trade  Senators  invariably  fall,  when  they  attempt  to  give  any  fad  con- 
nected with  these  duties.  But  if  these  low  priced  prints  were  actually  imported,  they 
would  not  pay  his  high  rates  of  "  75  to  150"  per  cent-  He  has  omitted  to  take  into  cal- 
culation a  fact  mentioned  in  his  tables:  that  these  goods  are  but  from  22  to  26  inches 
wide,  while  he  has  estimated  the  duty  on  each  running  yard  of  them  as  on  the  square 
yard  !  By  this  single  mistake  of  24  to  36  inches,  he  has  added  just  50  per  cent,  to  the 
duties  which  such  goods  would  pay,  if  imported.  This  is  another  small  instance  of 
the  influence  of  the  imagination  upon  the  facts,  when  an  inveterate  enemy  of  protec- 
tion denounces  it  to  his  constituents  and  to  the  country.  Take,  now,  a  greater:  in  the 
same  paragraph,  when  these  facts  have  once  more  passed  through  the  Senator's  mind, 
he  says :  "  But  when  tliese  articles  come  to  the  custom  house,  the  importer  is  required 
to  pay  from  two  and  a  half  to  five  times  their  original  cost." 

Here,  in  less  than  half  a  minute,  a  fixed  rate  of  duty  upon  a  fixed  value  is,  from  his 
own  erroneous  estimate  of  75  to  l-'iO  per  cent.,  increased  to  250  and  500,  and  this  on 
the  Bame  article.  As  I  have  often  said,  it  was  to  prevent  the  presentation  to  the  coun- 
try of  over-estimates  like  these,  by  public  men  wiio  have  a  wide  influence  upon  opin- 
ion, thai  I  desired  rather  to  see  a  Tariff  law  upon  the  basis  of  the  Compromise,  thaa 


I  '  I 


7  5>^ 

55- 


32 


the  present  act.  With  that,  every  man  who  purchased  an  article,  could  tell  whether 
or  not  it  was  valued  in  the  law  at  more  than  he  paid  for  it;  and  if  not,  he  would 
know  that  a  rate  of  duty  no  higher  than  was  necessary  for  revenue  was  imposed  on  it. 

I  have  inquired  of  dealers  in  foreign  prims,  ihe  duty  upon  which  is  so  much  com- 
plained of,  and  find  that  the  value  in  this  country  of  such  as  are  imported,  is  now  as 
high  as  that  fixed  in  the  present  law  upon  which  the  duty  is  computed;  so  that  the 
revenue  rate  of  30  per  cent,  is  what  is  collected  upon  the  actual  value  here.  This 
would  not  be  complained  ol  as  too  high,  if  it  was,  by  the  terms  of  the  law,  30  per 
cent,  upon  the  home  value,  and  that  declared  in  it.  Such  a  law  would,  and  the  one 
now  in  force  does,  cause  ihe  importation  of  fine,  light,  and  lastelul  ariicles,  and  leaves 
the  more  subslaniial  to  be  supplied,  cheaper  and  better,  by  ourselves;  and  thereby 
the  revenue  is  collected  from  those  who  buy,  what  may  be  called  luxuries,  and  secures 
the  object  which  those  profess  to  have  in  view  who  seek  to  destroy  it. 

I  might  go  through  the  entire  list  of  articles  selected  by  the  Senators  to  prove  the 
extravagant  rates  in  this  law,  and  show  il.at,  upon  the  actual  market  value  of  such 
goods  really  imported,  there  is  scarce  one  which  pays  a  higher  rate  upon  ihat  value 
than  they  themselves  admit  to  be  necessary,  to  raise  an  adequate  revenue.  That  this 
must  be  so  in  general  is  plain,  for  the  Treasury  is  not  yet  siithciently  supplied. 

Mr.  FresiJoni,  the  imporiance,  in  and  of  itself,  of  this  rjuesiiim  lo  the  pL-ople  of  ibis 
-onntry,  augmented  as  Jt  has  been  by  the  declaration  that  it  is  to  be  turned  into  one  of 
the  great  issues  of  the  l^residential  election,  has  constrained  me  to  go  into  an  exarai- 
nation  of  the  various  objections  urged  against  the  present  law,  and  of  the  specious  • 
plans  proposed  as  substitutes  for  it,  tedious  as  I  fell  that  this  must  be  to  the  Senate :  for 
I  regard  the  success  of  this  proposition  to  establish  a  Free  Trade  policy,  as  the  certain 
destruction  of  the  interests  of  the  mechanic  and  manufacturer.  Though  gentlemen  talk 
of  the  continuation  of  business  here,  in  unrestricted  competition  with  the  pauper  labor 
of  Europe,  and  calculate  on  seeing  tlie  labor  of  our  people  reduced  to  the  rates  of  Wales 
and  Germany,  I  desire  not  to  see  such  an  experiment  upon  a  people  now  generous  and 
free.  1  wish  not  to  see  how  much  our  people  will  bear,  before  they  learn  to  hate  their 
Ciovernment.  Better  quit  iheir  business  at  once,  than,  through  a  long  process  of  pri- 
vation, become  alienated  from  their  countrymen.  Let  the  change,  then,  be  instant : 
wear  not  out  their  energies  in  a  hopeless  conflict  with  the  half-fed  labor  of  the  Old 
World.  Give  ihe  blow  now,  while  they  have  the  strength  to  bear  it,  and  attachments 
to  their  country  which  cannot  be  destroyed  by  a  single  act  of  its  Government.  Let 
the  mechanics,  who  now  from  their  various  and  useful  toil  lie  down  to  rest  in  perfect 
confidence  of  the  protection  they  are  enjoying,  rise  from  their  pillows  and  find  »heir  " 
occupations  gone.  . 

In  such  an  event,  I  trust  we  shall  see  no  gatherings,  no  angry  murmurs,  for  they  are 
a  law-abiding  people.  Each  head  of  a  family  will  call  about  him  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren, and  say  to  them :  "  When  the  country  was  in  straitened  circumstances,  I  engaged 
in  the  business  which  has  supported  you,  with  the  fullest  assurance  of  the  encourage- 
2DeQi  and  puoteclion  of  our  Government.  For  some  cause,  I  know  not  what,  that  bu- 
siness has  become  odious,  and  protection  for  it  has  been  withdrawn.  VVe  have  to  seek 
some  other  means  of  life."  The  melancholy  group  will  turn  to  take  leave  of  their  late 
cheerful  employments,  of  their  homes,  of  the  graves  of  their  ancestors,  and,  last  of  alt, 
of  the  church  in  which  have  ascended  their  cheerful  devotions  to  the  Creator — but 
where  now  a  sadder  prayer  is  breathed  for  His  blessing  upon  their  new  efi'orts  to  find 
support.  Sir,  should  such  a  day  ever  come,  there  will  rise  up  from  the  altars  o*"  iheir 
trod  near  thrre  million-  '(  people  \'!>ii.  fi.rvi.'tue,  miilligence,  energy,  and  patriotism, 
have  not  been  surpassed  in  the  history  ot  this  world ;  nor  equalleJ,  perhaps,  unless  when, 
sixty-eight  years  ago,  a  nearly  equal  body  of  Americans  raised  their  voices  to  the  same 
Being,  to  invoke  His  aid  in  their  resistance  to  laws  of  the  mother-country,  not  more 
unwise  or  unjust,  as  it  seems  to  me,  than  that  which  we  are  now  called  on  to  pass. 
Different,  however,  would  be  the  condition  of  these  citizens,  called  to  no  lofty  struggle, 
in  which  the  honor  compensates  the  sacrifices,  but  condemned  to  seek,  through  the 
dark  uncertainties  of  toil  and  distress,  new  occupations  for  support.  But  one  will  be 
left  upon  which  they  can  throw  themselves:  they  must,  as  husbandmen,  become  rival 
producers  to  their  brethren,  in  supplying  markets  already  overstocked  in  every  part 
of  the  world. 

This,  sir,  is  no  overwrought  picture  ol"  the  desolation  which  such  a  law  would  pro- 
duce; nor  is  it  in  my  power  to  draw  it  to  the  life.  But  [  am  glad  to  know,  that  no 
such  law  can  prevail  in  this  Senate. 

I  DOW  leave  the  subject  with  the  most  entire  confidence  that  the  existing  law  will 
be  sustained  by  the  majority  here;  and  that  the  American  people  will  co-opeiate  with 
us  in  the  maintenance  of  a  system  of  protection  which  sustains  alike  the  labor  of  the 
individual  citizen  and  the  prosperity  and  independence  of  the  country. 


iimiiiNll IIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIMHIIIlim 

D     000  334  839     8 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


